Do you like Germans? -- LiveWire Teen Forums

They designated it for "sharing" for everyone (this is for Natives, not Europeans as far as I know) in equal plots. That alone implies possession. Everyone had a plot, everyone had a share. Therefore, the land is owned by everyone. If the Natives did not believe they owned in land, or did not at all believe in ownership, then they would've just let the Europeans have the land without fighting. Obviously, that is NOT what happened. They believed they OWNED it, and thus the Europeans have to TAKE it.
If I have a chocolate bar, and you ASK me for it, and I say NO, and you TAKE it. Then you are a thief, do not mistake that.

You have given a dishonest example.

You have a lake you have lived by for a long time. You let anyone drink out of it if you wanted, and when asked if it was yours, you said no.

Along comes someone else who drains out the water for his own use.
Is that stealing water? No. Asking if it is wrong is an entirely different story altogether.

The fact that you said "I have a chocolate bar" makes your comparison incorrect, because the Amerinds never had land. To have is "to possess; own; hold for use; contain" none of these definitions describe the connections the Amerinds had to the land.

Remember, we are not arguing whether it was right or wrong, good or bad. We're arguing whether or not it was theft. By definition, it god damn wasn't.

No, it wouldn't. Colonization in itself is wrong. So, as an extension, it must be so in America as well.

You see, that's an opinion. Not only that, it isn't what we're talking about.

They did, even when the Europeans asked them to move, most did not. Why?
Because they had laid claim to the land or they didn't understand what the Europeans asked. Or they signed faulty documents with figures that were intentionally vague, miscontrued or difficult to understand.

The Amerinds did not lay claim to the land at all. Ever. They did not believe in ownership of the land. You can't steal something from someone unless they own it. Since the Amerinds did not believe in the concept of private ownership of land, the land was never stolen.

Wrong. When you "push" someone from a plot of land without their permission, you are stealing it. Any land that Natives did not live on was free game, else it was stolen.

Pushing someone from land that isn't theirs is not stealing Takinam.
I'm not arguing whether or not it was the right thing to do - it just isn't theft.

There's no way to distort the word to make your claims so.

Not at all. If you do not follow the rules, you are breaking them, and that is unfair. If you are suppose to share the apples among five of your friends, and you eat all of them, then you are stealing apple sustenance from your friends.

Where was it written, claimed, or even understood that someone is "Supposed to" share the land? The Amerinds firmly believed it, the Europeans did not. Which makes one right and the other wrong?

Show me where European explorers were told they were supposed to share with Amerinds.

If the apples had no owner and were on a public tree, and I picked all 5 of the remaining apples and laid claim to them, there is no reason I would have to share it. I most likely would share them, because they are friends. But it's entirely a choice, and European explorers and Amerinds weren't always the best of friends either.

Yes, with what is yours. The rules for Native American land were not followed so the Europeans had no idea what was "theirs" or if any was theirs in the first place. You're grossly manipulating their ideals.

Show me these rules.
Show me where they are written down or where they were made clear to the European explorers.

Again, murder is wrong, and it is never justified, but let's not mistake the fact that whites did far worse in much larger numbers with little to no provocation most of the time.

We are not arguing whether murder is wrong or not. Some reasons why your claims are true is because there were more Amerinds, they were less advanced in technology, they had more primitive war-like tactics, and often felt threatened.

And no provocation? What provoked the Amerind attack on Jamestown? Whites were not in Amerind land.

Now, after that attack it was made very clear Amerinds attacked with no reason at all and a dangerous enemy that could attack at any moment, threatening the life of your people was quite provocation to Europeans at that time.

Give it a label if you please, be it "Wrong" or "right" but that's besides the point.

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

595 users online 225169 members 1480 active today Advertise Here