Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sanctuary Cities VS the Feds
#61
That's ridiculous Ron. Every tribe in the nation had borders they could not breach w/o a fight, just like we have.


That's why the fiercer tribes had more land.

The first ethnic Europeans who stepped onto this continent had to protect themselves from the nearest tribes. So did the 2cd and 3rd groups. Try reading a book about the pilgrims. The second generation caused a war with their closest tribe, it is called "King Phillip's War". It was brutal.

First thing the pilgrims did was murder their fellow Christians who were Indians and had chosen to live with them.

Those were supposed to be the good guys. No, they're just like us. Our faith is not such a serious thing when money or power is to be found.

They didn't ask permission and the Wampanoag were there and lived within a specific area like we do. Unlike you, the local tribe at first was welcoming to the new white tribe and vice versa, it took the 2cd generation of Europeans to become as arrogant as we are today.

Wampanoag were all over New England and this war took 3 years and cost 4000 dead which was a huge number per capita. You need to drop your propaganda nonsense about how this nation started and get into reality. We killed a lot of people who did not invite us here, at least the Mexicans are not doing that to you.

If someone came into your town and started killing you guys and taking your property, you'd say they were cold blooded killers.

After reading a tad, how about coming back here and admitting what you posted is nonsense based on cowboy movies. This war below is the first one the colonists had, it went on and on for 2 centuries until we exhausted them all. They roamed alright, on well defined areas until it was time for a new war to grab more land, just like our forefathers did.

Our side was just better at killing and for a Christian, that should not be something you're proud of or take advantage of.

https://www.britannica.com/event/King-Philips-War

I have a co-worker that possesses a letter of his great grandma right in this area who said they slept in the "canebreak" last night to avoid Indians. They were all over this entire continent. Many states and rivers are named after them, that would really be odd if they were just roaming around w/o borders.

Those states include your's and mine. That's a defined area. That's why they fought us for the land. Stealing, killing and holding folks as slaves( which happened across the land, not just down here) doesn't look good to God because white folks did it anymore than if Arabs or Chinese do it.
Reply
#62
Ron is correct on his statement about Native Americans being mostly nomads. John, being more versed in anthropology can probably cite chapter and verse, but a few tribes did have formal treaties with each other, but even those were privy to negotiation, since the established concept of ownership of land was unknown. The tribes lived from here to there, but the land was not property - rather they were living on and using the land, but it was the tribes who made space for each other to use the land. Even with historical burial lands, the tribes didn't have borders, per se. In times of famine or forest fires, the tribes just picked up and moved to find land they could use without encroaching on others. Sometimes they did encroach.

The one basic was that small tribes moved out from underneath the expansion of bigger, more powerful tribes. For them it worked, because the land was always there, and there was plenty for all. It was just the convenience of use that moved them around.

Comparing what happened way back then and what pertains now is useful - but claiming precedence is nonsense. The ownership of land evolved and is what it is.

Consider the feudal lords and how that culture evolved. Many people lived on land they could not plant or harvest without help. A wealthy lord would own the tools needed to plow and hunt. Mostly, the retainers of an area accepted life through the tools, and owed allegianc to the owner of the tools.

They claimed the land they planted, so they could harvest it later. Voila! Property was invented.
Reply
#63
Your state is named after a tribe, for a logical reason, it's where the Michigan roamed. Kinda like it's where white and black people roam now that say they live in Michigan.

https://thoughtcatalog.com/james-b-barne...our-state/

27 states were named by the tribes who lived there, you can convince yourself they just roamed around like blind deer. They lived there and they lived there by doing what we did, killing people in competition for the same land.

That's OK for a man like you when it helps you and it is terrorism when it doesn't. For me, it's all wrong. Killing to get stuff is wrong, doesn't matter what I look like or what language I speak.
Reply
#64
Tribes roamed peacefully, in general. There was always lots of good land, so no need to fight over it. The State of Michigan got it's name from the Ojibwe word for "Great Lake." It was never the land. There were eight separate and different tribes in Michigan. They appeared here or there. My state is not named "Ojibwe". Michigan has tens of thousands of lakes. Many have names that came from the tribes. Many are now simple translations: Long Lake, Square Lake, etc.

27 states may have been named for tribes that lived there. They rarely claimed ownership of the land because they left the lands often to go to better areas when they needed to. There is a city near me named Royal Oak. Must we all leave that area and let the trees grow in peace?
Reply
#65
(08-03-2017, 06:43 PM)WmLambert Wrote: There is a city near me named Royal Oak. Must we all leave that area and let the trees grow in peace?

Palladin is applying modern standards to the distant past.  It sounds like you are contemplating applying strange future (flora rights) standards to the present.  How about we apply current laws to today's issues?   There's a far more deeper and sinister phenomenon going on with the current mess.  It has to do with rule of law.  If laws don't apply equally to everyone and are effectively enforced they mean nothing ... and you end up in a situation like what is currently concurring in Mexico.  Our current immigration laws are unpopular ... mostly because they have become irrelevant ... or at least they were during the last administration which basically ceded it's Article II obligations.  If they are bad laws change them.  The absolute best approach would be to make it very easy for immigrants to follow the law.  Double, triple, quadruple the legal quotas.  Simplify the application process.  Reduce the fees.  Reduce the waiting time for a work visa ... and then enforce the hell out of the law on those that don't abide by it.  If you really want to turn this nation into a complete sh*thole, pass a raft of laws and then selectively enforce or ignore them all together.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#66
Yak,

It's you guys who hold Mexicans to certain standards yet you're flag waving proud of how our ancestors did the same thing you accuse them of(only worse since we used violence). Isn't that hypocrisy?

Doesn't have anything to do with ancient versus modern standards.

If it was grand and a proud thing to celebrate that our ancestors came here w/o permission and with violence to establish the USA, then it ought to be just as proud a thing for you to celebrate Mexicans coming here w/o asking.

Especially since 1/3 of this nation was stolen from them at the point of a rifle in a typical American war where our corrupt government lied to the people about the why of it.



Their families preceded our's in this land. Mexicans living in Mexico proper had relatives north of the Rio Grande before Europeans ever came here.

They have been screwed by us historically. Then, for 60 years, we want them here doing the work illegally so our businesses can use them even more. If we didn't have a concensus to do that, it never would have been tolerated.

Our immigration system is not set up for unskilled labor and we've somehow not changed that in 60 years now. Because we want them here illegally. So we can use them more with less legal liability and lower wages.


We consume drugs like crazy, make them illegal and have brought nothing but hell to their society like we did Columbia's previously with this stupid ass drug war.

We've got a lot of liability on us for the violence there. As opposed to you, I kinda understand why a Mexican might want to come here. If there were legal ways, they'd take them, but, there are not.


I feel bad the way we've handled this relationship and overlook their coming here. I sure would deport criminal Mexicans, but, not the rest. I'd treat them like Reagan did. He was more successful than this dunderhead running the nation right now.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  No money for Rogue Sanctuary Cities Marbleheader 5 1,356 07-08-2006, 02:11 PM
Last Post: Palladin

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)