Ending Imperialism - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Ongoing wars and conflict resolution, international agreements or lack thereof. Nationhood, secessionist movements, national 'home' government versus internationalist trends and globalisation.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By layman
#14559629
So when are you going to hand back Texas to Mexico or Puerto Rico to the Spanish? Or, for that matter, hand back the entire continental United States to the Native Americans?


Yes and the same goes for Russia. Both expanded more than any other country in the world ever has, without giving it back.

And then BOTH of them preach to others about imperialism, especially to the europeans who dont even have colonies anymore.

I find it quite incredible how narratives can be so blatantly twisted through patriotic, self rightious propaganda.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14559630
So when are you going to hand back Texas to Mexico or Puerto Rico to the Spanish? Or, for that matter, hand back the entire continental United States to the Native Americans?

Never on the first two and the last has been done on a small degree. I want to see these areas gain autonomy, not be given back to another imperialist.
#14559631
One Degree wrote:and the last has been done on a small degree.


No, it hasn't.

One Degree wrote:I want to see these areas gain autonomy, not be given back to another imperialist.


Most indigenous communities in what is now called the USA are not imperialists.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14559633
Most indigenous communities in what is now called the USA are not imperialists.


Grrrrr! Obviously, I was referring to Spain and Mexico in that statement. Native Americans have land in excess to their numbers when looked at as people per square mile in the US. We can not change history. We can only try to go forward in hopefully a more fair manner.
#14559640
One Degree wrote:Native Americans have land in excess to their numbers when looked at as people per square mile in the US.


I see. Why do you, or any non-indigenous person, get to decide how much land each person is supposed to have?

One Degree wrote:We can not change history. We can only try to go forward in hopefully a more fair manner.


I do not want to change history. Instead, I want the USA and Canada to respect the actual treaties they signed and follow their own laws, which would then require recognising indigenous land claims, as well as recognising their own history in breaking treaties and ignoring indigenous land claims. In other words, iwant them to face up to their history.

That would be fair.
By layman
#14559642
I do not want to change history. Instead, I want the USA and Canada to respect the actual treaties they signed and follow their own laws, which would then require recognising indigenous land claims, as well as recognising their own history in breaking treaties and ignoring indigenous land claims. In other words, iwant them to face up to their history.


The "indigenous" would be uber rich if they got this for sure.

They would be the new 1% in America.
#14559644
Maybe.

The amount of stolen wealth should not affect whether or not the US and Canada have a duty to follow their own laws and recognise indigenous land claims.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14559646
Most Native Americans did not believe in land ownership. Why should it be an issue now? How can they claim something they said they never owned in the first place? This is just another example of a political group attempting to achieve more power. It has nothing to do with history.
By layman
#14559648
The amount of stolen wealth should not affect whether or not the US and Canada have a duty to follow their own laws and recognise indigenous land claims.


It is only the fact it was "stolen" rather than "conquered" that means this should be rectified? I remember you bringing this up before but curious for clarification.

Taking mexico may have been wrong but it was a "legal" conquest.

Taking Native land was simply stealing and so we should rectify it.
#14559649
One Degree wrote:Most Native Americans did not believe in land ownership.


This is a myth.

I think Europeans spread this myth so that they could take the lands away "because no one owned them".

Indigenous peoples have their own laws concerning land ownership. They happen to be different from European ideas of land ownership, due to the absence of feudalism.

-----------------

layman wrote:It is only the fact it was "stolen" rather than "conquered" that means this should be rectified? I remember you bringing this up before but curious for clarification.

Taking mexico may have been wrong but it was a "legal" conquest.

Taking Native land was simply stealing and so we should rectify it.


More or less, yes.

The USA and Canada never won a war of conquest against indigenous people Instead, we signed contracts (i.e. treaties) and then we broke them.
By layman
#14559652
More or less, yes.

The USA and Canada never won a war of conquest against indigenous people Instead, we signed contracts (i.e. treaties) and then we broke them.


Fair enough.

It doesnt seem to be much of a moral argument though. Just a tactic.

scenario 1 - Power declares war, invades and then rapes, pillages and annexes bunch of land.

scenario 2 - power walks into land that has been decimated by plague and simply sets up there, ignoring the tribe who owns it and is now reduced and based elsewhere.

Not sure why it makes sense for the world to reverse instances of scenario 2 rather than 1. I suppose it would at least be more practical as it was less common.
#14559654
The USA and Canada are both (theoretically ) liberal democracies, and thus, according to their own rules, the gov't has to follow its own laws.

So, according to their own laws, they are obligated to follow the treaties they already signed.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14559657
Laws are based upon current morality and are often seen as irrational by the next generations. What is your point? Shit happens. Get over it and move on.
#14559659
One Degree wrote:Laws are based upon current morality and are often seen as irrational by the next generations.


That has nothing to do with what I said.

What is your point?


I have several.

1. Part of ending imperialism is cleaning up our own backyard and returning the land we stole that we live on.
2. Indigenous peoples have their own systems of land ownership that are just as valid as ours.
3. Our own laws say that we should respect the treaties we signed.

Shit happens. Get over it and move on.


I can understand why settlers (such as you and I) would like indigenous people to stop caring about the fact that we took their stuff. This way, we can enjoy their stuff without any guilt. Other than that, things like fairness and understanding our own history suggest we should address these issues that are still happening today.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14559660
Fine. I want my families land back that the carpetbaggers stole after the Civil War. I will then give it back to the Native Americans we took it from and then they can give it to the Native Americans they took it from, etc. (The French and the Native Americans can have their own arguments.)
It is over. None of us alive today need be affected by it. We can hardly be expected to undue all the unfairness done in the world. It is just plain silly to even think about it.
#14559661
One Degree wrote:Fine. I want my families land back that the carpetbaggers stole after the Civil War. I will then give it back to the Native Americans we took it from and then they can give it to the Native Americans they took it from, etc. (The French and the Native Americans can have their own arguments.)


Unlike you and your issue with carpetbaggers, indigenous people actually have legal documents (treaties) that clearly show that they own the land according to the law.

It is over. None of us alive today need be affected by it.


What are you talking about? It is not over. it is happening right now.

We can hardly be expected to undue all the unfairness done in the world. It is just plain silly to even think about it.


It is silly to think that the US gov't should follow the laws of the USA? Please explain why.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14559666
In the name of fairness then Britain, France, and Spain should compensate the current owners for any land turned over to Native Americans. They started this, so it would only be fair.
It is also amusing that you do not think White Southerners had legal title to their land.
Anyway, Imperialism is not good today. This has nothing to do with it being totally acceptable in all of past history. Supporting local autonomy today would give Native Americans the best we could hope for.
#14559669
One Degree wrote:In the name of fairness then Britain, France, and Spain should compensate the current owners for any land turned over to Native Americans. They started this, so it would only be fair.


This is a thing that settlers can settle among themselves and has nothing to do with what I said.

It is also amusing that you do not think White Southerners had legal title to their land.


You don't have treaties with the federal gov't, like indigenous people.

Anyway, Imperialism is not good today. This has nothing to do with it being totally acceptable in all of past history. Supporting local autonomy today would give Native Americans the best we could hope for.


So, you support indigenous sovereignty?

Wel when i see stories of a cop getting attacked […]

@blackjack21 wrote: He was the Senator from De[…]

Do you have sex with a stranger as often as you sh[…]

And here’s an AP report on the CCP’s foot-dragging[…]