Give America Back To The Indians!

ed243421

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I saw this posted on another message board where someone brought up a very valid point. Is there a way the Shinnecock can prove they always lived on those lands and they didn't steal it from some other native group?

great work kel

let's see
we know the early settlers stole their land
we do not know if the shinnecock stole that land

if it upsets you so much that they get back 750 acres
of what was originally millions of stolen acres
then do some research

and please,
keep us informed

dasvidana

prfctlefts wrote:

This is somthing that should have happened a long time ago. Maybe someday china will give Tibet back

+1

arq

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I saw this posted on another message board where someone brought up a very valid point. Is there a way the Shinnecock can prove they always lived on those lands and they didn't steal it from some other native group?

Even if they took the land from someone else the that doesn't give right to the next "settler" to steal the land from them, as far as we know they were the first, they don't have to prove anything. So if they stole the land from someone else I'm pretty sure the new settlers are not going to start the search for the previous owner to give return the stolen land.

dimitrispearljam

no way!!!the indians dont eat pancakes!!!!where my friend ,speedy can find them after???

Godfather.

arq wrote:

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I saw this posted on another message board where someone brought up a very valid point. Is there a way the Shinnecock can prove they always lived on those lands and they didn't steal it from some other native group?

Even if they took the land from someone else the that doesn't give right to the next "settler" to steal the land from them, as far as we know they were the first, they don't have to prove anything. So if they stole the land from someone else I'm pretty sure the new settlers are not going to start the search for the previous owner to give return the stolen land.

the cavemen and women of the great Continent Pangaea ? ...I think thats what it was called...
anyway lets draw up a contract and anybody with direct DNA following back to cromagnin or Neanderthal man
get a free piece of this great Continent that includes s.America...whatta ya say ?

Godfather.

Cosmo

I think it would be fucking GREAT is they built one of thse gaudy Casinos in the Hamptons... close to the Kennedy Compound.
Or better yet... next door to Martha Stewart's house. Her head would explode.

Godfather.

Cosmo wrote:

I think it would be fucking GREAT is they built one of thse gaudy Casinos in the Hamptons... close to the Kennedy Compound.
Or better yet... next door to Martha Stewart's house. Her head would explode.

.....matbe it would be a little ezer on her if they let her do the interior design .

Godfather.

Jason P

I'm not sure we should give America to the Indians. :thumbdown: I mean, they haven't even been back to the Series since '48. How can we trust them to turn America around when the can't even put together a consistent starting five-man rotation.

BinauralJam

Jason P wrote:

I'm not sure we should give America to the Indians. :thumbdown: I mean, they haven't even been back to the Series since '48. How can we trust them to turn America around when the can't even put together a consistent starting five-man rotation.

That's true, and i mean look at this Lineup!!!

Player TEAM POS G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI TB BB SO SB CS OBP SLG AVG
1. C Baerga
CLE 2B 135 557 87 175 28 2 15 90 252 35 31 11 2 .355 .452 .314
2. A Belle
CLE OF 143 546 121 173 52 1 50 126 377 73 80 5 2 .401 .690 .317
3. O Vizquel*
CLE SS 136 542 87 144 28 0 6 56 190 59 59 29 11 .333 .351 .266
4. M Ramirez*
CLE OF 137 484 85 149 26 1 31 107 270 75 112 6 6 .402 .558 .308
5. K Lofton
CLE OF 118 481 93 149 22 13 7 53 218 40 49 54 15 .362 .453 .310
6. J Thome*
CLE 3B 137 452 92 142 29 3 25 73 252 97 113 4 3 .438 .558 .314
7. E Murray
CLE DH 113 436 68 141 21 0 21 82 225 39 65 5 1 .375 .516 .323
8. P Sorrento
CLE 1B 104 323 50 76 14 0 25 79 165 51 71 1 1 .336 .511 .235
9. T Pena
CLE C 91 263 25 69 15 0 5 28 99 14 44 1 0 .302 .376 .262
10. S Alomar
CLE C 66 203 32 61 6 0 10 35 97 7 26 3 1 .332 .478 .300

_

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I saw this posted on another message board where someone brought up a very valid point. Is there a way the Shinnecock can prove they always lived on those lands and they didn't steal it from some other native group?

Whether or not they stole the land from someone else, the burden of proof is not on them to prove that they didn't. If another group wants to claim that this was originally their land, the burden of proof will be on them. But no one is even making that claim, so this doesn't seem like a very valid point at all. And regardless of orginal ownership, one thing everyone knows for sure is that the people who currently (until now) have the land are not its rightful owners and need to give it back to the people they took it from.

Godfather.

scb wrote:

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I saw this posted on another message board where someone brought up a very valid point. Is there a way the Shinnecock can prove they always lived on those lands and they didn't steal it from some other native group?

Whether or not they stole the land from someone else, the burden of proof is not on them to prove that they didn't. If another group wants to claim that this was originally their land, the burden of proof will be on them. But no one is even making that claim, so this doesn't seem like a very valid point at all. And regardless of orginal ownership, one thing everyone knows for sure is that the people who currently (until now) have the land are not its rightful owners and need to give it back to the people they took it from.

seems I remember hearing that the Indians always said nobody owns the land, and how could that above post not be a valid point, stealing is stealing right ? you keep talking about who was here first so are you only going back as far as certain tribes ?

Godfather.

_

Godfather. wrote:

scb wrote:

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I saw this posted on another message board where someone brought up a very valid point. Is there a way the Shinnecock can prove they always lived on those lands and they didn't steal it from some other native group?

Whether or not they stole the land from someone else, the burden of proof is not on them to prove that they didn't. If another group wants to claim that this was originally their land, the burden of proof will be on them. But no one is even making that claim, so this doesn't seem like a very valid point at all. And regardless of orginal ownership, one thing everyone knows for sure is that the people who currently (until now) have the land are not its rightful owners and need to give it back to the people they took it from.

seems I remember hearing that the Indians always said nobody owns the land, and how could that above post not be a valid point, stealing is stealing right ? you keep talking about who was here first so are you only going back as far as certain tribes ?

Godfather.

No, I'm not only going back as far as certain tribes. As I said, if another tribe can prove it's their land then give it back to them - but no one else is claiming it's their land so it's a moot point.

I think the idea behind no one owning the land is more or less that people shouldn't be selfish and rape the land and keep others from using it. But we have created a nation where everything must be "owned" or it can be taken by someone else. So the only way to keep others from exploiting the land and kicking out the original inhabitants is to claim legal ownership. To own means to protect in this case. Maybe that's as far as they'll take the concept of ownership though. Who knows. It's not really our business anyway. But certainly the "If you don't believe in ownership then we can take your shit" mentality is not valid.

Godfather.

Scb thought you might find this a interesting read,cool info.
I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything just saying this is cool stuff.
http://www.goarchie.com/aashid/BeforeIndians.html

Godfather.

Kel Varnsen

scb wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

scb wrote:

Whether or not they stole the land from someone else, the burden of proof is not on them to prove that they didn't. If another group wants to claim that this was originally their land, the burden of proof will be on them. But no one is even making that claim, so this doesn't seem like a very valid point at all. And regardless of orginal ownership, one thing everyone knows for sure is that the people who currently (until now) have the land are not its rightful owners and need to give it back to the people they took it from.

seems I remember hearing that the Indians always said nobody owns the land, and how could that above post not be a valid point, stealing is stealing right ? you keep talking about who was here first so are you only going back as far as certain tribes ?

Godfather.

No, I'm not only going back as far as certain tribes. As I said, if another tribe can prove it's their land then give it back to them - but no one else is claiming it's their land so it's a moot point.

I think the idea behind no one owning the land is more or less that people shouldn't be selfish and rape the land and keep others from using it. But we have created a nation where everything must be "owned" or it can be taken by someone else. So the only way to keep others from exploiting the land and kicking out the original inhabitants is to claim legal ownership. To own means to protect in this case. Maybe that's as far as they'll take the concept of ownership though. Who knows. It's not really our business anyway. But certainly the "If you don't believe in ownership then we can take your shit" mentality is not valid.

Just a hypothetical but what if they wiped out the people who lived there before them? And it should totally be up to them to prove it was theirs and not someone elses, the same way when I recenly bought a house it was up to me to make sure the person I was buying it from was the actual owner.

And just another point about the whole idea of giving back land. If the US decided to give back all the lands they "stole" from the natives by means of violence, would they have to give back the rest of the land (at least in the original colonies) to the UK, since that land was taken from the British by means of violence.

Byrnzie

arq wrote:

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I saw this posted on another message board where someone brought up a very valid point. Is there a way the Shinnecock can prove they always lived on those lands and they didn't steal it from some other native group?

Even if they took the land from someone else the that doesn't give right to the next "settler" to steal the land from them, as far as we know they were the first, they don't have to prove anything. So if they stole the land from someone else I'm pretty sure the new settlers are not going to start the search for the previous owner to give return the stolen land.

It's about the law. I presume they have legal documents & treaties that give them a lawful claim to the land.

Just as the Israeli's have no rightful claim to the land of Palestine based on a debatable 2000 year old claim, but is instead based on the law as laid down since 1947 by the U.N.

Byrnzie

Jason P wrote:

I'm not sure we should give America to the Indians. :thumbdown: I mean, they haven't even been back to the Series since '48. How can we trust them to turn America around when the can't even put together a consistent starting five-man rotation.

Though I bet they'd be good at polo :P

_

Kel Varnsen wrote:

scb wrote:

No, I'm not only going back as far as certain tribes. As I said, if another tribe can prove it's their land then give it back to them - but no one else is claiming it's their land so it's a moot point.

I think the idea behind no one owning the land is more or less that people shouldn't be selfish and rape the land and keep others from using it. But we have created a nation where everything must be "owned" or it can be taken by someone else. So the only way to keep others from exploiting the land and kicking out the original inhabitants is to claim legal ownership. To own means to protect in this case. Maybe that's as far as they'll take the concept of ownership though. Who knows. It's not really our business anyway. But certainly the "If you don't believe in ownership then we can take your shit" mentality is not valid.

Just a hypothetical but what if they wiped out the people who lived there before them? And it should totally be up to them to prove it was theirs and not someone elses, the same way when I recenly bought a house it was up to me to make sure the person I was buying it from was the actual owner.

And just another point about the whole idea of giving back land. If the US decided to give back all the lands they "stole" from the natives by means of violence, would they have to give back the rest of the land (at least in the original colonies) to the UK, since that land was taken from the British by means of violence.

I don't think it matters whose land it was before if there's no one left to claim it as theirs. I don't get what you're suggesting. Should those who stole it from this tribe be allowed to keep it just because the tribe can't prove they didn't take it from another extinct peoples? And how do you prove that anyway? If the house you bought had been taken illegally from someone who was no longer alive and had no heirs, then what? And how did you really prove that it wasn't taken from someone several owners back?

As far as the colonies go, it's historical fact that the British stole the land from the Natives, so just as soon as we gave the land back to the British they'd have to give it back to the Natives.

_

Godfather. wrote:

Scb thought you might find this a interesting read,cool info.
I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything just saying this is cool stuff.
http://www.goarchie.com/aashid/BeforeIndians.html

Godfather.

Yes, that was interesting. Thanks.

TriumphantAngel

the time has come
a fact's a fact
it belongs to them
let's give it back

how can we dance when our earth is turning
how do we sleep while our beds are burning......

hail hail midnight oil.

Kel Varnsen

scb wrote:

Kel Varnsen wrote:

scb wrote:

No, I'm not only going back as far as certain tribes. As I said, if another tribe can prove it's their land then give it back to them - but no one else is claiming it's their land so it's a moot point.

I think the idea behind no one owning the land is more or less that people shouldn't be selfish and rape the land and keep others from using it. But we have created a nation where everything must be "owned" or it can be taken by someone else. So the only way to keep others from exploiting the land and kicking out the original inhabitants is to claim legal ownership. To own means to protect in this case. Maybe that's as far as they'll take the concept of ownership though. Who knows. It's not really our business anyway. But certainly the "If you don't believe in ownership then we can take your shit" mentality is not valid.

Just a hypothetical but what if they wiped out the people who lived there before them? And it should totally be up to them to prove it was theirs and not someone elses, the same way when I recenly bought a house it was up to me to make sure the person I was buying it from was the actual owner.

And just another point about the whole idea of giving back land. If the US decided to give back all the lands they "stole" from the natives by means of violence, would they have to give back the rest of the land (at least in the original colonies) to the UK, since that land was taken from the British by means of violence.

I don't think it matters whose land it was before if there's no one left to claim it as theirs. I don't get what you're suggesting. Should those who stole it from this tribe be allowed to keep it just because the tribe can't prove they didn't take it from another extinct peoples? And how do you prove that anyway? If the house you bought had been taken illegally from someone who was no longer alive and had no heirs, then what? And how did you really prove that it wasn't taken from someone several owners back?

As far as the colonies go, it's historical fact that the British stole the land from the Natives, so just as soon as we gave the land back to the British they'd have to give it back to the Natives.

I just think the whole idea of giving back land to people because people that may have been related to them had it taken from them is stupid. I mean it is not like the people who live there now were involved in the taking. And considering how multicultural the US is, it is entirely possible that the people living there weren’t even related to the people who took the land from the tribe. I mean what if there is a Japanese family for example living on a house in that land, are you going to take their land, that they actually own to give it to someone else. Plus I think that the whole idea of giving back land is stupid, if you go back far enough pretty much everyone’s ancestors were conquered by someone at one point. Like I said, if you give land to native tribes in north America, are you going to give the rest of the US, where they didn’t live back to the british? Are you going to give Normandy back to the British? How about the parts of Newfoundland that didn’t have native tribes living on them, maybe those should be given back to Norway since the Vikings lived there for awhile. Humans evolved in the Olduvai Gorge in Africa, so if I want some of Tanzania can I make a claim to have it? Hell natives in North America came over on a land bridge from Asia, so why can't they make some land claims in Asia, or why can't people from Asia make land claims to North America?