- Joined
- Nov 26, 2009
- Sythe Gold
- 0
- Messages
- 1,205
Is the settling and claiming of Native American lands, by the Europeans morally justified? If not, what morally gives the Native Americans the right to the land?
Native American lands
- Thread starter pure skillzz
- Start date
The native americans (or Australians or whoever else) don't somehow have a more legitimate claim to the land than the Europeans, they did their fair share of moving around and by extension removing others from their land. Superior cultures overtake inferior ones, ideally without violence.
I agree with Angelmax. Native Americans got their lands by conquering those who were there previously, as did those, as did those, as did those.
Really the only reason this is an issue is because now, European/American/etc. culture claims to be "altruistic" or whatever. Now, we claim to be "above the barbarianism", so we have to make a big deal about preserving another civilization. Really, though, we're no more above the barbarianism than we those before us were.
Really the only reason this is an issue is because now, European/American/etc. culture claims to be "altruistic" or whatever. Now, we claim to be "above the barbarianism", so we have to make a big deal about preserving another civilization. Really, though, we're no more above the barbarianism than we those before us were.
owning things is a natural property of human nature.
BUT
Truly owning something means that it's your's and you're willing to fight for it. If the battle is lost, thus is the item.
The native people did own the land, but when challenged they lost.
now in today's society fighting another person for their belongings is wrong if both parties don't agree to the fight, but in the 1600s when it was disputed there was no such ideals.
Their ideals where whoever wants it has to fight for it.
BUT
Truly owning something means that it's your's and you're willing to fight for it. If the battle is lost, thus is the item.
The native people did own the land, but when challenged they lost.
now in today's society fighting another person for their belongings is wrong if both parties don't agree to the fight, but in the 1600s when it was disputed there was no such ideals.
Their ideals where whoever wants it has to fight for it.
kill dank
Hero
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2010
- Sythe Gold
- 13
- Messages
- 6,471
I don't like the way they went about it. They avoided a war with the indians, but in the end they forced them off their land. If they wanted to take it, there should have been an arranged war, not just us taking control of their land little by little as we made laws.
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2009
- Sythe Gold
- 0
- Messages
- 1,205
I'm not for any side, it was something I was just thinking about the other day. There just questions I'm asking so I can learn a little more about property rights.
As messy as things were, in the end no one really gives a damn about what you lost/gained. It's if you were on the side that won that matters.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2007
- Sythe Gold
- 33
- Messages
- 1,155
So you'd rather us have exterminated them? Because that's what would have happened.
kill dank
Hero
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2010
- Sythe Gold
- 13
- Messages
- 6,471
A compromise would have been better but people would rather use violence. And besides, you don't have to kill people to build stuff on their land. Only kill them if they fuck with it.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2007
- Sythe Gold
- 33
- Messages
- 1,155
You said there should have been a war rather than slowly forcing them off their land. We did build stuff on their land - thats how we slowly forced them off. Idk what you wanted to happen...
It was probably unavoidable, but it could have been done better, and treaties could have been upheld, as treaties are legally binding forever.
How exactly do you have an arranged war, especially when one side is an unconnected set of tribes?
kill dank
Hero
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2010
- Sythe Gold
- 13
- Messages
- 6,471
Maybe if they are unable to come to a peaceful agreement, everyone should just stay where they were. I was saying that building stuff on the land doesn't have to involve killing anyone or forcing them to relocate. We just considered them "savages" and killed them all.
I'm sure the tribes had some communication between one another. I just think it was a cheap shot for us to never actually declare war on them over their land if we were gonna take it in the first place.
Legend
Why do you keep saying "we"? You were never there.
You're ignoring the fact that most of the tribes hated eachother as much as the Europeans.
kill dank
Hero
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2010
- Sythe Gold
- 13
- Messages
- 6,471
So does that make it any better to steal from them?