[countrygun]

Originally Posted by QNman

Taking my tongue out of my cheek (and may my forefathers forgive me), this really is the salient point. The land was not wholly owned by native Americans, and those that arrived did so without it being either legal or illegal.

Sometimes it is difficult to not have a certain reaction on behalf of my ancestors, but, the truth is for my family, once they learned about the White man's "Sears and Roebuck" catalog, and the fact that it had pictures AND you could use it as a new thing called "Toilet paper" it was all over, as they rushed towards oil lamps and indoor plumbing.

[QNman]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

To the victors go the spoils. You don't have to like it, but that is simply the way it is.

All of that happened decades before the birth of my great grandfather. I can't fix that and have no feeling of responsibility for it. This land is ours today. Deal with it.

Read my post again, my friend. I am an American first and foremost. My forefathers were what they were, just as yours were. I'm proud of it, but I don't pretend anyone owes me anything because of it.

[QNman]

Originally Posted by countrygun

Sometimes it is difficult to not have a certain reaction on behalf of my ancestors, but, the truth is for my family, once they learned about the White man's "Sears and Roebuck" catalog, and the fact that it had pictures AND you could use it as a new thing called "Toilet paper" it was all over, as they rushed towards oil lamps and indoor plumbing.

I hear you, brother.

[rgregoryb]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

So, the choice is to support the defenders of the Alamo, or the la Raza crowd.

Fork 'em sideways.

I'm sayin we won it fair and square..............

[QNman]

Originally Posted by rgregoryb

I'm sayin we won it fair and square..............

Yeah, Doc seems defensive tonight. Must have had to talk to (e.g. listen to) a Democratic patient today.

()

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by QNman

Read my post again, my friend. I am an American first and foremost. My forefathers were what they were, just as yours were. I'm proud of it, but I don't pretend anyone owes me anything because of it.

Don't worry, we are cool.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by QNman

Yeah, Doc seems defensive tonight. Must have had to talk to (e.g. listen to) a Democratic patient today.

()

More than one brother.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by rgregoryb

I'm sayin we won it fair and square..............

Yup. What happened happened. Long before my great grandfather came onto the scene. No Guilt here.

[engineer151515]

Originally Posted by countrygun

Do you understand the concept of "Legal"?


There wasn't an existing law in North America that made migration "Illegal" hence the could not have been doing anything illegal.

Obviously he does not.

At best, he confuses morality with legality. A common mistake.

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by engineer151515

Obviously he does not.

At best, he confuses morality with legality. A common mistake.

Well it's better than getting into a debate with someone who says "Don't try to legislate morality" and won't admit that most of man's basic laws are legislated morality.

[QNman]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Don't worry, we are cool.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

More than one brother.

[QNman]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Don't worry, we are cool.

I saw a car today in Illinois. It made me thing of you. It had a Texas plate, and a sticker that said "Combat Medic".

[janice6]

I’m tired of hearing how this country was taken from the original “owners”.

The following is not a Politically Correct statement. It is, however, the real world. If you are offended, tell someone else. This is how our wonderful world works.

Whether you like it or not, the historical reality is that we only occupy what we can keep others from taking away from us.

This country was never taken from the original owners. No one owns a country. They occupy it until someone stronger takes it from them. If you don’t think so, consider disbanding the military and see how long this government/country lasts. You might even consider permitting unlimited immigration, and see how the results are just the same as losing a war of occupation.

This country was taken from the previous occupiers. Make no mistake. They had no central organized government, were nomadic, relatively sparse in numbers, with limited offensive/defensive capabilities. Thus they lost it due to weakness.

This country was taken, for the most part, by a war of occupation. The war was fought by an occupying force, in numbers that overwhelmed the original inhabitants. These invaders had superior numbers and force. There was no question they “Won”this country by occupation. In the concept of the times, “To the victor belong the spoils”.

We have always been in the same position as the original occupiers, in that, if others think they have superior numbers and force, they will certainly try to take the country away from us.

They are welcome to try. We have developed this country sociologically and technologically and now consider it ours, and we will keep it. We will make the cost of trying to take it away from us as high as humanly possible. We will use all the means at our disposal to keep it.

If anyone thinks we can be taken over, go ahead and try. It has always been the same all throughout history, if you can take it, it’s yours - but be sure you don’t want to lose what you already have.

If you feel the need to “debate this”, find someone else to talk to.

[kirgi08]

Originally Posted by JBnTX

Their forefathers were legal immigrants, not illegal immigrants.
Too many people get the terms mixed.

Maybe,see below.

This country was built by legal immigrants.
All the illegal immigrants have ever done is take from this country and never give anything back.

No it wasn't,It was built by folk that wanted a new start.

Originally Posted by JFrame

Well, this is certainly moral relativism taken to a ridiculous extreme...


.

No my friend it's not,this thread is trying ta apply laws from England ta the "Founding" of this land.

Originally Posted by Beware Owner

This territory didn't belong to the colonists, it wasn't given to them...



Really? Where did they apply for their visas?

It wasn't,it was considered ta be what you can hold is yours.From the original settlement and beyond.

Originally Posted by oldman11

BINGO! You got it right. The same goes for Texas.

Disagree,Texas reclaimed from the Spaniards when?.The colonists started fighting when?.

Originally Posted by countrygun

Do you understand the concept of "Legal"?


There wasn't an existing law in North America that made migration "Illegal" hence the could not have been doing anything illegal.

Disagree my friend,tribal law existed well before the "written" law did.It was "tribe" wide yet it existed.Most tribes had the same basic code/s.

Originally Posted by Beware Owner

You don't need a law to tell someone what belongs to them...

Ayep.

Originally Posted by JBnTX

Visas were not required. The original immigrants broke no laws when they came to America.

Disagree,they left,will say ""England",they left ta avoid religious persecution,the persecution part was part taxes AND choice of faith.So they left for personal freedom both monetary and religious.

Unlike the current crop of illegal trespassers who do break the law when they enter this country illegally.

There's a big difference.

..

Not really,those founders were motivated by principles,the Illegals are here following the American dream.What's the difference?,the costs.Our founders set up the system,folk have been allowed ta manipulate it.

Originally Posted by Beware Owner

They took over something that didn't belong to them, even if there was no written law, it's the same basic principle.

It's called "squatters",that was the system.No one claimed,it's yours.

Originally Posted by countrygun

Ignorance is not your friend.

The Natives at the time did not have a concept of "possesion" as we know it. Their "territory" was limited to what they were standing on basically. Personal possesions were also shared.

Quit looking at history through the glasses of today's values/morals/concepts.

They did have a "concept" of range/Hunting grounds.CG,They knew their limits.

Originally Posted by Paul7

Where was the Indian's titles to the land? They were constantly fighting each other for possession, and in the white man ran into a superior opponent. If you disagree, perhaps you could give your house lot back to the Indians.

White men killed more Natives by infection than rifle.As I've said above,I disagree with most of the assumptions I've read.'08.

[series1811]

Originally Posted by JFrame

Well, this is certainly moral relativism taken to a ridiculous extreme...


.

Or, really, legal relativism. I can't believe it didn't read, "our forefathers were undocumented citizens/voters, too".

[Bren]

Originally Posted by Beware Owner

They didn't use the term illegal immigrant back then, but...

Because there was no immigration law back then, so there were no "illegal" immigrants.

Originally Posted by Beware Owner

This territory didn't belong to the colonists, it wasn't given to them...

No, it wasn't given - they took it. That makes them invaders, but not "illegal" immigrants.

Originally Posted by Beware Owner

You don't need a law to tell someone what belongs to them...

Maybe not, but you need a "LAW" for that belonging to be "legal" or "Illegal" since that's what those words mean.

[engineer151515]

Originally Posted by Beware Owner

They took over something that didn't belong to them, even if there was no written law, it's the same basic principle.

There is no law saying you can't hand over your real estate deed to the local native American group of your choice.

Might even be a tax write off, if you do it right.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by QNman

I saw a car today in Illinois. It made me thing of you. It had a Texas plate, and a sticker that said "Combat Medic".

I used to train and lead combat medics. Typical medical platoon in an armor or infantry battalion has a PA, a medical admin lieutenant, 28 - 40 combat medics, and an MD (but only when deployed).

[JayJay83]

Originally Posted by Beware Owner

They took over something that didn't belong to them, even if there was no written law, it's the same basic principle.

Is that really a bad thing? Using your principle you could even argue that Britain doesn't belong to the Anglo-Saxons...

[QNman]

I would like to add the following:

My forefathers were native Americans (well, some of them anyway). The land WAS taken, in any sense or description of the word.

However, ONLY in modern America is this somehow considered a "crime" ir some other immoral behavior. For thousands of years, land is taken by conquering forces and claimed as their own. It's been that was since the beginning of time. I've never read once where the Romans were bashing their own for "stealing" land from the Germanians; it was and remains the way life is. The strong survive, thrive, and write the history books. Boo hoo.

ONLY in modern America, with our generations of schooling insisting that we should abhor our own existence for the alleged "sins" of our founding fathers, can what occurred be considered anything other than what it was - a stronger force taking the land from a weaker one and claiming it as their own.

Too, ONLY in modern America have you seen a modern government attempt in many ways to rectify the perceived wrongs, rebuild the land it conquered, and hand it back over after the fact. And oddly, the more we do, the more we get accused of being imperialists.

[Paul7]

Originally Posted by kirgi08

No it wasn't,It was built by folk that wanted a new start.



No my friend it's not,this thread is trying ta apply laws from England ta the "Founding" of this land.



It wasn't,it was considered ta be what you can hold is yours.From the original settlement and beyond.



Disagree,Texas reclaimed from the Spaniards when?.The colonists started fighting when?.



Disagree my friend,tribal law existed well before the "written" law did.It was "tribe" wide yet it existed.Most tribes had the same basic code/s.




Ayep.



Not really,those founders were motivated by principles,the Illegals are here following the American dream.What's the difference?,the costs.Our founders set up the system,folk have been allowed ta manipulate it.




It's called "squatters",that was the system.No one claimed,it's yours.



They did have a "concept" of range/Hunting grounds.CG,They knew their limits.



White men killed more Natives by infection than rifle.As I've said above,I disagree with most of the assumptions I've read.'08.

The native infections were unintentional.

While taking possession of South America, Spain stopped this:

"Michael Harner, in his 1977 article The Enigma of Aztec Sacrifice, estimates the number of persons sacrificed in central Mexico in the 15th century as high as 250,000 per year. Fernando de Alva Cortés Ixtlilxochitl, a Mexica descendant and the author of Codex Ixtlilxochitl, estimated that one in five children of the Mexica subjects was killed annually. Victor Davis Hanson argues that a claim by Don Carlos Zumárraga of 20,000 per annum is "more plausible."[43] Other scholars believe that, since the Aztecs often tried to intimidate their enemies, it is more likely that they could have inflated the number as a propaganda tool.[44] The same can be said for Bernal Díaz's inflated calculations when, in a state of visual shock, he grossly miscalculated the number of skulls at one of the seven Tenochtitlan tzompantlis. The counter argument is that both the Aztecs and Diaz were very precise in the recording of the many other details of Aztec life, and inflation or propaganda would be unlikely. According the Florentine Codex, fifty years before the conquest the Aztecs burnt the skulls of the former tzompantli. Mexican archeologist Eduardo Matos Moctezuma has unearthed and studied some tzompantlis."

Wikipedia

[conservativenut]

Originally Posted by countrygun

Ignorance is not your friend.

The Natives at the time did not have a concept of "possesion" as we know it. Their "territory" was limited to what they were standing on basically. Personal possesions were also shared.

Quit looking at history through the glasses of today's values/morals/concepts.

Point of order there territory moved with the herds of animals they hunted.

[JFrame]

As someone noted above, history is written by the victors.

The Apache were keeping and trading slaves long before they themselves got shipped to reservations.


.

[Paul7]

Originally Posted by JFrame

As someone noted above, history is written by the victors.

The Apache were keeping and trading slaves long before they themselves got shipped to reservations.


.

Here in NM after the Pueblo Revolt of 1680 when the Spanish were driven out, the Apache beat the stuffing out of the local Pueblo Indians. They were begging the Spanish to come back, which they did.

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by conservativenut

Point of order there territory moved with the herds of animals they hunted.

Indeed and they were then standing on that land. They didn't run back to see if anyone was trespassing on the land they left three days ago


And to furhter debunk a myth before it gets started, several "tribes" were non-migratory. For instance the Athabascan speakers on my local region were completely sedintary in fixed "clan" villages, but they had no idea of a "territory" belonging to them, persay. The divisions between themselves and other tribes were actually genetic boundaries since it was custom to "steal' a wife from another tribe and hence, gene pool.