ORIGINAL: krueger
If the issues i raise were already adressed i'm asking anyone to please respond regardless.
I probably joined this thread a little late but i extremely disagree with muley69 and i fail to see the vast majority of logic behind his arguements and what they are based on
. If you fail to see the logic, then how can you henceforth proceed to argue against it?
If the native americans didnt believe in land ownership then how could they steal property from one another? Did they put up fences and NO TRESPASSING signs?
If they didn't believe in land ownership then how could the white man steal something that they didn't own to begin with?
PLEASE inform me on how native americans are LUCKY that we "conquered" them and thier lands. Where is there any information that would even hint they are or were lucky. Or even that other nations would have exterminated them.
Your correct, there is absolutely no history of any nation ever trying to exterminate a race. Stalin, Hitler, Saddam, Nero, Malosovich, Attilla, and a whole host of others never really existed.
One more thing who are we (im asking about the ones who con*****ed indians), I pretty sure America is the melting pot of the world, was it one nationality that conquerred the native americans. Native Americans being lucky is the most propostirous and ridiculous claim that i have read out of all these post.
What countries are you talking about where the ancestors aren't native to those lands, such as Americans aren't to america
?
The issue isn't who is native, but rather what country owned the land first that they now call there own?
IMO i do not believe to have a single legitimate statement i ALL of your posts (muley69).
I think this because you have not cited a single academic resourse for any of your ludicris statements
.
Because you fail to see the logic, that makes my statements ludicris? You have to be kidding about siting academic resources! Have you read this thread? Off the top of my head I have been called "college boy", told I need to "get my nose out of the books", my degree means nothing with this issue, I need "real world expierence", I'm a victim of "revisionist history" etc. And you propose I start quoting from my library, are you nuts? I
think you also used your degree as a sort of defense mechanicism hoping that nobody would contest you?
This is by far your most proposterious statement. I really wish I would have never brought up my degree, As I stated before, I did so in response to a statement that "I needed more education" on the subject. Common sense dictates that if I felt so threatened I needed a defense mechanism, that I simply would leave the thread and not return. Had I known bringing up my degree would be such an issue, I would have never done it.
I THINK YOU ARE MAKING ALOT OF YOUR FACTS UP.
You cant argue the blue because it is my own personal opinion
.
I can argue whatever I want.
I believe you are trying to drag the topic of pre-european native americans into present tense
As I stated before my respose was in reference to the second post, not the first. Adams the poster, basically said indians lived at one with nature, until we stole their lands. He furthered the argument by equating the indians "plight" to The U.S. history. Plight is a present tense word, Adams, not me tied this two togather. To me it seemed Adams was trying to blame the current indian problems on the history of the U.S. this was even suggested in a later post be another poster.
native americans where you have utilized tangled rherotic, which has most to accept your assumptions in logic
. I have no idea what this means.
I am not trying to make this into a fight and i know it reads offensively but i too am being blunt. If you or anyone can provide me with one reason how the Native Americans were lucky and not completely screwed by the US GOVT, then i will completely withdrawn my post and apoligise for the inconvience. Also please tell me these academic resources that back up your statements
.
I feel I am constantly being drug back to this thread to defend myself. I lamented responding because I had promised not to continue this subject. I am spending to much time rehashing the same points. It is obvious to me the many of you simply haven't read the entire thread. It is also obvious to me that many of you post bits and pieces that frankly, are hard to understand. I cannot possible respond to every point, every poster makes. I have responded to this post, only because of the passionate nature of krueger's reply. Additionally, it is nearly impossible to fully explore this topic by posting replys back and forth. In my opinion, there are really three issue's here: 1. Pre-european tribal conservation, 2. The white mans role with reguard to indian land issues, and 3. The current state of the indian reservation/culture. Somehow, we are all arguing these three togather, and that is a difficult task.
Krueger, I appreciate your input and concern, however, also keep in mind that opinions are the norm in a internet forum environment, and everybody is entitled to their own. It is hypocritcal to say that somebody is just giving their opinion, while at the same time you are giving yours. Finally, at the expense of sounding redudant, I realllllly wish I had never brought my educational background into the subject. Apparrently, some of you feel this was lording education. I stated earlier, education is NOT a barometer for human worth. Some on the brightest people I know never even graduated high school, and I love them all the same.
Finally, I have spent too much time on this thread. I no longer see any value in continuing this discussion. I will not digress into petty arguing and name calling. By all means continue this discussion if you want, but I will no longer be apart of it. Thank you all for your insights and thoughts, see ya on a different thread.