 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
 Has there ever been a country which has JUST occupied 'empty land'? Every country has started from a small tribe or city taking over other tribes/cities. |
Not talking about countries, talking about peoples. Can you prove that the Amerinds who were forcibly displaced by European settlers had previously "stolen" the land they occupied? Or the Aboriginees in Australia?
Empty land has to be occupied initially, and in regions where there is a vast expanse of land, such as North America, conflict over land is the exception, not the norm.
But the point is, where would youn define a theft of land? If we lived next door to each other (god forbid), and I walked over with a gun and forcibly evicted you, claiming your property, would that not be a theft of your property?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
Can you prove that the Amerinds who were forcibly displaced by European settlers had previously "stolen" the land they occupied? Or the Aboriginees in Australia? |
Are you saying that EVERY Amerindian tribe just settled into empty land and never took land from other tribes? |
Did I say EVERY? You do realize that your position is one of EVERY, so mine just has to show that not every did?
quote:
You do realize that they fought wars amongst each other? And land was taken over by one tribe or another. Look at the expansion of the Sioux/Lakota. |
EVERY? Proof?
And the Sioux expansion you're referring to was post-colonial, now, wasn't it? A time when Amerinds were certainly experiencing a land/resource crunch, thanks to...what?
quote:
To claim that native tribes simply settled into open space and left other tribes alone in their spaces is an utterly ludicrous proposition. |
Can you prove that didn't happen for EVERY tribe?
Sure, warfare happened, but note where I pointed out where warfare over land, i.e. wars of conquest, was "the exception, not the rule"
quote:
It'd be illegal, so yes. Lefty is 100% correct. You can't call something theft when it is considered legal and acceptable. |
 legalizing away the moral wrongness of seizing land nonconsentually from its existing inhabitants, while not surprising from you, hardly makes it look any better nor justifies it.
The fact is, plenty of people at the time, notably missionaries, were decrying the treatment of the natives.
Speaking of legality, how about all those signed treaties with the Amerind tribes that were subsequently and categorically violated by the American government? Those Sioux you mentioned could teach you a lot about that.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Did I say EVERY? You do realize that your position is one of EVERY, so mine just has to show that not every did?
EVERY? Proof?
|
To the extent there are archaeological, linguistic, or cultural data available, the overwhelming majority of cases shows displacement of population groups by other groups.
quote:
And the Sioux expansion you're referring to was post-colonial, now, wasn't it? A time when Amerinds were certainly experiencing a land/resource crunch, thanks to...what?
|
It was "post-colonial" in a technical sense, but I doubt the conquest of the Aztecs and settlements in Jamestown and Plymouth really had much to do with the Lakhota and Nakhota migrations from Minnesota.
quote:
Can you prove that didn't happen for EVERY tribe?
|
In many cases, there is little or no evidence regarding prior occupants. Southern California is a good example - the present Kumeyaay related bands speak languages dialectically related to western Shoshonean languages (great basin Indians), and historical pottery and similar evidence shows a sudden transition approximately 500 years ago from unrelated forms to distincly western Shoshonean forms. However, there are minimal finds predating that 500 year period, and virtually nothing is known about the origins, numbers, or fate of those peoples. All we know is that their minimal contribution to the archaeological record stopped and there was an very quick appearance of western Shoshonean finds.
In many other areas of the US, especially the midwest and west outside of Arizona, New Mexico and southern Colorado, there are too few records of anything of note to ever determine the patterns of settlement, migration and displacement, let alone any causes.
quote:
Sure, warfare happened, but note where I pointed out where warfare over land, i.e. wars of conquest, was "the exception, not the rule"
|
That is primarily a function of different cultural concepts of land and territory. Warfare over resources was intense in many cases, especially in times of shortage.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
Before I respond, I'd like to point out that A. I'm a second generation South Asian (Bangladeshi) immigrant and that B. You know didly about Austin.  |
University, hi tech, yuppies, and all that - the liberal island in Texas. But I still thought, surrounded by San Antonio and other heavily hispanic cities you might exaggerate the number of hispanics compared to other blue collar immigrants. And yes, I recalled vaguely you were of Bangladeshi origin - but living in Austin, you may forget how many blue collar Asians there are in the US, as opposed to be people drawn to high tech employment.
Yes, plane fare is a cost to immigrants. But then so is the cost of getting past immigration, including paying immigrant runners, the chances of dying in the desert, etc.
In any case this is academic, as we ARE assimilating hispanic immigrants.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Yes it was. But you're exaggerating it...it's not about Americans speaking the language, it's about them learning some basics and attempting to speak it when abroad. It's simply incredibly rude to be in a foreign country and walk up to its citizens and jabber away in your own tongue, expecting them to know what you're saying. It's presumptuous to say the least. If you had been in NY and started talking to shop keepers in Finnish, they would probably have treated you pretty poorly. Well, more poorly than usual.
|
I was once in Israel on an exchange program that included among others, a Finnish young lady. Said young lady was fluent in Swedish and English, and knew some French, and I think German and Italian. (Finnish multilingualism ) Said young lady was riding a bus in Tel Aviv. Buses in TA (at the time, anyway) involved purchase of tickets, with spot checks driver didnt check) Said young lady was riding without a ticket, for reasons I forget. Well, sure enough, the spot checker got to her - it was of course NOT expected that a foreigner speak Hebrew (dont remember if she said hed guessed she was foreigner from her Nordic appearance, her non response to Hebrew, or if she showed her passport) it WAS expected that any foreigner traveling in Israel would speak ENGLISH. Not wanting to get in trouble for not having a ticket, she responded in, you guessed it, FINNISH. Frustrated, the ticket checker went away.
But of course she was from Turku, IIRC, so maybe she didnt count
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Boris, I don't think it is disputed that population groups have displaced population groups throughout history. |
I would like evidence it is always the case. And not just displacement, but violent overthrow. Remember that such displacement can occur peacibly, either by the vacancy of the are by previous occupants, or by an intermingling and subsequent cultural overpowering. Neither of those cases would be the same as outright conquest.
The fact is, there HAD to be original occupiers of any land, as no people have been where they are for all eternity.
quote:
And may I remind you that you said:
Can you prove that the Amerinds who were forcibly displaced by European settlers had previously "stolen" the land they occupied?
Amerindians who were forcible displaced had displaced other groups in their expansion. Those groups that had not displaced other groups had been already taken over by the ones who were still around when the Euros came over on their boats. |
That's not proof, that's you claiming it to be the case. I sincerely doubt that every Amerind tribe in North America was where it was thanks to violently overthrowing the previous occupants. That one group may have replaced another over the course of centuries is not, in and of itself, evidence for violent conquest.
Regardless of all of this is the point that, just because it happened all the time, doesn't mean that it was right. Just because one group's ancestors may have slaughtered previous occupants doesn't make their own slaughter at the hand of invaders right or just. As I mentioned before, saying that there was no contemporary notion that how the Europeans treated the natives was morally repugnant is a very dubious claim, because there were plenty of Europeans at the time who expressed outrage over it. Given that the moral tenets of Western civilization at the time were very much based on Christian concepts of morality, any claim that what was done to the people was moral by their culture's standards is, I believe, disingenuous.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-08-2004 10:43
|