Video: President Biden's Native American nominee for Interior Secretary Deb Haaland Says US Capitol Sits on Indigenous Land at Confirmation Hearing!

fncceo

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
28,744
Reaction score
14,606
Points
1,415
And? What does that have to do with anything? She is Native American. Perhaps her mother married a norwegian? Who cares??? Every city in every state is sitting on indigenous land.
i challenge you to find 1 person who agrees with you!
I agree with her. Every home, farm, office, and fixture in the US sits on what was once indigenous land. Apart from packing our bags and moving somewhere else, there is nothing that can be done.
 

Gracie

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
64,384
Reaction score
23,380
Points
2,290
Location
Wandering Nomad
That tard dared me to find someone to back me up. I didn't have to go look. Anyone that bases a last name on a soccer player is coo coo.
 

Gracie

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
64,384
Reaction score
23,380
Points
2,290
Location
Wandering Nomad
They didn't share the concept of ownership of property, but they sure knew about territory, where they hunted, or fished, spent the winters, buried their dead, met for their spiritual ceremonies, planted their corn. Of course it was their ancestral territory, whether they moved about to take advantage of the seasons or not.

I don't see why what she said would get anyone bent out of shape.
Because it vividly demonstrates that she is a far-left radical. Not someone that should be in any position of power whatsoever. Perhaps she had lunch with Nathan Phillips, another wacko, after the hearing.
Because she said this?
I acknowledge that we are on the ancestral homelands of the Nacotchtank, Anacostan, and Piscataway people.

That is all she said about the matter. I'm linking the transcript of her opening remarks. I can't find anything remotely radical in it. Where is the problem for you?
The problem is, he thinks he is Mr. Newsman and if anyone says anything he deems against his NUMOROUS Daily"news reports", he freaks out. Then refers to his soccer knowledge.:cuckoo:
 

OldLady

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
68,186
Reaction score
18,363
Points
2,220
They didn't share the concept of ownership of property, but they sure knew about territory, where they hunted, or fished, spent the winters, buried their dead, met for their spiritual ceremonies, planted their corn. Of course it was their ancestral territory, whether they moved about to take advantage of the seasons or not.

I don't see why what she said would get anyone bent out of shape.
Because it vividly demonstrates that she is a far-left radical. Not someone that should be in any position of power whatsoever. Perhaps she had lunch with Nathan Phillips, another wacko, after the hearing.
Because she said this?
I acknowledge that we are on the ancestral homelands of the Nacotchtank, Anacostan, and Piscataway people.

That is all she said about the matter. I'm linking the transcript of her opening remarks. I can't find anything remotely radical in it. Where is the problem for you?
The problem is, he thinks he is Mr. Newsman and if anyone says anything he deems against his NUMOROUS Daily"news reports", he freaks out. Then refers to his soccer knowledge.:cuckoo:
I think he must be tripping. This is the biggest fail of a thread I've seen in awhile.
 
OP
basquebromance

basquebromance

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
65,765
Reaction score
11,099
Points
2,070
They didn't share the concept of ownership of property, but they sure knew about territory, where they hunted, or fished, spent the winters, buried their dead, met for their spiritual ceremonies, planted their corn. Of course it was their ancestral territory, whether they moved about to take advantage of the seasons or not.

I don't see why what she said would get anyone bent out of shape.
Because it vividly demonstrates that she is a far-left radical. Not someone that should be in any position of power whatsoever. Perhaps she had lunch with Nathan Phillips, another wacko, after the hearing.
Because she said this?
I acknowledge that we are on the ancestral homelands of the Nacotchtank, Anacostan, and Piscataway people.

That is all she said about the matter. I'm linking the transcript of her opening remarks. I can't find anything remotely radical in it. Where is the problem for you?
The problem is, he thinks he is Mr. Newsman and if anyone says anything he deems against his NUMOROUS Daily"news reports", he freaks out. Then refers to his soccer knowledge.:cuckoo:
I think he must be tripping. This is the biggest fail of a thread I've seen in awhile.
the pressure of my thread will cause all 100 patriotic senators to vote against this imposter
 

Leo123

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2017
Messages
12,171
Reaction score
5,754
Points
400
The 'Indians' are lucky we are who we are. Traditionally, conquered people have all their men and boys put to death or enslaved and worked to death while all their women are raped and subjugated by their conquerors. Socialist societies like Stalin's Russia or Cambodia's Pol Pot (Khmer Rouge) just killed everyone by the millions. There was a war for America, the 'Indians' lost and it is only by American values that some of the tribes still exist and are now turning the tables with legal gambling. I say good for them!!
 
Last edited:

DukeU

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Messages
2,346
Reaction score
2,439
Points
1,938
And? What does that have to do with anything? She is Native American. Perhaps her mother married a norwegian? Who cares??? Every city in every state is sitting on indigenous land.
Actually that's not true.

Did the White Man Steal North America from the Indians?


The first principle listed here would seem to suggest that all of America was the possession of the Indians prior to the age of discovery by the white race. However, the Indians never laid claim to all of the "territory" of America because they had no understanding of its size and boundaries. The Indian only claimed the land he was inhabiting and that which he used for hunting, burial, etc. At the time of discovery (circa 1500 A.D.), the American Indian numbered about 700,000 inhabitants, sparsely scattered over what is now America. Thus the Indians never had a legal claim to much more than 3% of the land at any one time. So it can be said that the Indians did have a legal claim to America, 3% of it, which was considered their "own territory."



In light of this, it cannot be said that the white race violated the second principle of International Law either, since 97% of America was not legally the "property" of anyone. When America was claimed by the English, French, and Spanish, they claimed the entire breadth and width of the land, from sea to sea, from one boundary to the next. However, the lands that the Indians occupied within these European claims were still Indian land.



It must also be addressed as to whether the white man encroached upon and took possession of lands that were legally claimed by the Indian. The third maxim of International Law says we have to look at the Indian's law, and that whatever measures or acts the white man took in regards to Indian land must be pursuant to Indian law. The following are some of the laws that were generally held by the Indians:

1. It was a law common among Indians that the stronger of two tribes or people (nations) has the right to conquer and subdue the weaker.

2. Under Indian common law it was understood that land claims existed by inhabiting the land and by any use of the land.

3. When any land was unoccupied or not used for one year, the land was free for anyone to claim and settle.

This first law of the Indian could actually render all other arguments of land rights academic. This law was almost a way of life with the Indian, which is why they were always warring among themselves. The wars and conflicts between the white race and the Indian race throughout history were numerous, and the fact that the white race was the stronger cannot be doubted.

According to the third Indian law listed, the white man, or any man or nation, had the right to possess the vast lands that were uninhabited or unclaimed by the Indian in America. Since the Indians never claimed the American continent from Atlantic to Pacific, the lands claimed by right of discovery are valid. Thus, the only legal conflict that can exist lies with the 3% of land the Indian had a legal claim to in America, in accordance to the second Indian law listed.
 

Gracie

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
64,384
Reaction score
23,380
Points
2,290
Location
Wandering Nomad
Bullshit.

NDNs went according to the season. Fertile areas to grow corn, plenty of game due to fresh water, livable weather according to the season. This was their land. Each tribe (nation) moved about, sometimes warring over coveted areas. There were more than one tribe (nation), ya know. Whether ANY of them knew the extent of the size of the USA, it was still there from times long past. They didn't believe in "owning" land. They just knew which "territory" was mostly used by which tribe and either honored that, avoided the areas, or warred to gain the fertile areas they needed for their own tribe.

And heaven for bid oil/gold was found there. Or some group of Eupeons fell in love with the waterways for their cattle/crops. Then it was no longer free country to the LOCALS. It got staked out and was given to the settlement or "landowners" who "staked a claim" with the "government". So Instead of wars, white man offered treaties to give the NDNs other lands for their own use. Oops. Silver was discovered. Gold. Oh, a train is needed to get those uropeans from point A to point B. Gotta move y'all again. Eventually, NDNs were moved to the most sparse, less fertile, horrible seasoned areas and even then that land was needed for something else.

So....you can wash it any way you want but it still comes out as theft of a nation from its original inhabitants.

Try readin Trail Of Tears. Just one of MANY stories.

pfffffffffffffffft
 

Gracie

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
64,384
Reaction score
23,380
Points
2,290
Location
Wandering Nomad
Can me and a bunch of friends drive thru your ranch and shoot all your cows for funzies? No? That would upset you?

Buffalo. Train. Guns. Death to FOOD SUPPORT, on land given to NDNs by Forked Tongues.


Oh, and do note, folks, how missing Lakota is from this thread. Cuz he ain't Lakota, that's why. Fake injun.
 

easyt65

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
69,590
Reaction score
29,351
Points
2,330
The OP says in the title that she is Native American....so, deported back to WHERE?

The vast majority of everything in this country now sits on one Native American land. I believe the fact that this land was taken under the white-created motto of 'Manifest Destiny' ('Your shit is now MY shit') falls under the same category as blacks wanting to be paid reparations for slavery (despite never being a slave, their parents never having been slaves, THEIR parents never having beedlslaves....) - 'SHIT HAPPENS!'


Slavery happened - past tense...VERY past tense.

What was Native American land is no longer. WE'RE not demanding reparations....Japanese Amerivcans were detained in detention centers in WWII. They're not demanding reparations....because they know SHIT HAPPENS, AND THEY / WE MOVED ON.
 
OP
basquebromance

basquebromance

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
65,765
Reaction score
11,099
Points
2,070
She is a cheerleader for the Biden administration

And she is really a ringleader against fossil fuel use.
 

Truth2Know

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
Messages
302
Reaction score
140
Points
190
Most of the lands of the world has been taken away by winning conquerors, some several times, thus who had it first is meaningless.
Love this statement. The only change I would make is to substitute "All" for "Most."
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top