[Drlee]

There is no logical reason for colonialism to have ended simply because a treaty was signed. Especially if it was signed as gunpoint.

Yours is an absurd argument. It is tantamount to saying that WWI didn't end just because Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles.

Besides. The treaties were not signed "at gunpoint". You are simply engaging in an exercise in ignoring history. By your logic any white person living outside of Europe is a "colonial". Tell me. Did we colonialize Japan? We occupied their country, imposed their governmental system, (at gunpoint) and still maintain an armed presence on their soil. Are we colonial masters of Japan?

It is beyond silly to even imagine that anyone is going to move the 98% of people living in the US out on the absurd notion that it is not their land. I understand that there are people so profoundly stupid that they feel outrage at this reality but I would advise them to seek help.

Now if you want to argue for complete integration of Native Americans into the culture I would argue that the possibility to do that individually already exists and is even facilitated by the government. I would also assert that if a native American wants to live an isolated life on a reservation, depending on his/her tribal affiliation they can do that. I am all for leveling the playing field by removing all federal subsidies for Native Americans imposed by those very treaties you find so offensive. Looking at the deal Native Americans get from the federal government in the form of inviolable land, money and services it is hard to determine who colonized who.

[QatzelOk]

There is no law that says LGBTQ people can't be stupid, like everyone else.

Are all LGBTQ people stupid? Is everyone else stupid?

Here, you are pretending not to understand the sentence structure that Godstud used. Using feigned ignorance to "win" arguments (by not understanding your opponent) is a brain-limiting exercise in big-dick-manship.

If he mocked your "stupidity" in this thread, it's because it's been your primary tactic. Truly "stupid" people simply don't participate in political arguments, but that is not who you are. You fake stupidity, which is much worse. Faking ignorance is a bullying tactic that can really limit the learning potential of a thread.

Gay reparations is the topic, so what is your feigned ignorance going to provide? Stagnation and continued blindness?

[Pants-of-dog]

Wars may end with treaties, but that has nothing to do with colonialism.

Colonialism ends when one country stops unilaterally imposing its will on another.

And many of the treaties were signed at gunpoint. But I like this idea that you see the US as being at war with indigenous people, and so it is more of an ongoing occupation than anything else.

Also, no one said anything about moving all the settlers out. I have no idea why you assumed I was arguing that, except as a way to call me stupid while avoiding moderator action.

Instead, you guys should become citizens of indigenous communities. You know, integrate. Be good immigrants. Follow the laws of the country to which you emigrated, et cetera.

[Drlee]

Also, no one said anything about moving all the settlers out. I have no idea why you assumed I was arguing that, except as a way to call me stupid while avoiding moderator action.

Bingo!

Instead, you guys should become citizens of indigenous communities. You know, integrate. Be good immigrants. Follow the laws of the country to which you emigrated, et cetera.

[Pants-of-dog]

So, other than childish insults and a fervent belief that the US can do wrong, you have no argument or rebuutal.

Colonialism is still happening.

Sovereignty is still just a promise.

The land is still stolen.

But I understand that it is beneficial for US residents to believe that this all happened in a distant past.

[SSDR]

So, other than childish insults and a fervent belief that the US can do wrong, you have no argument or rebuutal.

"Childish" is a social construct.

The land is still stolen.

Nothing can be geographically stolen on a larger, non personal scale in a socialist context.

[Pants-of-dog]

@SSDR

Where are you from?

[Drlee]

So, other than childish insults and a fervent belief that the US can do wrong, you have no argument or No rebuutal.

I have posted plenty on this. You are ignoring it.

Colonialism is still happening.

No. It most certainly is not.

Sovereignty is still just a promise.

No it is not. In this very thread I posted an example where sovereignty is upheld in our courts. Now you post an example where it is not.

The land is still stolen.

Nonsense.

But I understand that it is beneficial for US residents to believe that this all happened in a distant past.

Beneficial? How is that. Do you think we have or ought to have some national shame? Nonsense.

The clash of stone age tribal culture with modern technology was inevitable. Entirely predictable. By and large Native Americans got about as good a deal as they could hope to get. Better than what was predictable given the political and cultural climate of the day.

[Pants-of-dog]

Your last post was completely bereft of any argument or intelligent criticism.

Please explain howmthe current relationship between Washington and indigenous communities is not one of colonialism.

Use this defintion:

Colonialism is the policy of a nation seeking to extend or retain its authority over other people or territories,[1] generally with the aim of opening trade opportunities. The colonising country seeks to benefit from the colonised country or land mass. In the process, colonisers imposed their religion, economics, and medicinal practices on the natives. Some argue this was a positive move toward modernisation, while other scholars counter that this is an intrinsically Eurocentric rationalisation, given that modernisation is itself a concept introduced by Europeans. Colonialism is largely regarded as a relationship of domination of an indigenous majority by a minority of foreign invaders where the latter rule in pursuit of its interests.[2]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism

[Drlee]

Thank you for posting the evidence that defeats your argument. Native Americans are US citizens in every sense of the word. They are, by definition, their own oppressors?

[Pants-of-dog]

Since nothing in that definition, or history, says that one cannot simultaneously be a citizen and still have to deal with colonialism, this is not an adequate explanation of an end to colonialism.

Perhaps if you looked at the definition I quoted and referred to that, you would have more luck.

[Drlee]

I looked at it. I agree with some of those quoted. Why is this hard for you?

You endlessly carp about stolen land. That is just nonsense.

[Godstud]

I think we can all agree that the land was stolen/acquired/liberated, at one time. How this applies to LGBT reparations is not significant, however. There will be no repatriated land in any reparations to the LGBT community.

[Drlee]

Correct. It has absolutely nothing to do with LGBT reparations.

The fact is that the very idea that somehow Native Americans will reacquire the country or somehow become landlords for the rest of us is laughable. To even propose it is simply trolling. Whining perhaps. The best advice I have for those who would bemoan the lot of Native Americans is to actually learn something about what their life is like, what their choices are and then to stop sniveling about them. They don't whine and snivel about themselves.

[Pants-of-dog]

Returning the land would be ideal, but no one realistically expects that.

The best thing we could hope for now would be a respectful and mutually beneficial relationship between Washington and Ottawa on one side, and the various indigenous communities on the other. This relationship would be based on free, prior and informed consent by both sides, and a mutual spirit of respect, with neither side imposing conditions unilaterally.

We are still very far from that.

[Drlee]

The best thing we could hope for now would be a respectful and mutually beneficial relationship between Washington and Ottawa on one side, and the various indigenous communities on the other. This relationship would be based on free, prior and informed consent by both sides, and a mutual spirit of respect, with neither side imposing conditions unilaterally.

We are still very far from that.

Speak for Canada. We already have that relationship between Washington and the tribes. One caveat.

In the US Native Americans are citizens of the Union as well as their individual nations. They exercise all of the rights and privileges of a citizen but are not subject to all of the rules. They are, in some ways a privileged class.

[Hindsite]

I think we can all agree that the land was stolen/acquired/liberated, at one time. How this applies to LGBT reparations is not significant, however. There will be no repatriated land in any reparations to the LGBT community.

Reparations is just a campaign propaganda ploy by the left-wing radicals in hopes of getting votes.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, the USA does not have that relationship with the indigenous communities living in its borders. The fact that the US unilaterally imposes US laws, money, land ownership, and government with no consent disproves the assertion of a mutually respectful relationship.

[Drlee]

No, the USA does not have that relationship with the indigenous communities living in its borders.

It most certainly does.

The fact that the US unilaterally imposes US laws, money, land ownership, and government with no consent disproves the assertion of a mutually respectful relationship.

Garbage. Again we ask. Show your evidence. You are a big fan of asking others for proof but woefully unwilling to do it yourself.

Pure propaganda. I can assure my overseas friends here that these assertions are pure bullshit.

[Verv]

When did colonialism stop in North America?

It would be really hard to say, right, because we are talking about a word whose meaning can shift with the attitude of the person.

Great question. Maybe you could make some arguments that the US stopped colonizing places in the far West in, like, 1889-1912 when some of our last states in the West became fully recognized as states, but perhaps it is a bit later when there was more equitable relations with Native Americans that we could view them as being no longer "colonized."

Perhaps 1867 when Canada became the first federation in the British Empire? But I wouldn't really know. It'd take a fair minded Canadian to tell us when they stopped being something like an underdog in the United Kingdom.

Mexico had achieved its independence before then.