Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (42205)	6/27/1999 9:05:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

The Native American never believed that they owned the land, so we couldn't have stolen it. Nobody owned it. That was contrary to their belief system. We found something that nobody else owned, and took ownership of it. Just like finding a stray dog or domesticating a wild horse. Might not have been contrary to their belief system, but it might have been thought to be contrary to the belief system of our ancestors. Good thing for us that our ancestors regarded their belief system with a certain degree of elasticity. If they had treated the Native Americans with a true Christian spirit, where would we be now. It is so much easier to be moral when your ancestors were efficient enough at immorality to amass you a nice bit of territory and a solid nest egg.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (42205)	6/27/1999 9:13:00 PM
From: James R. Barrett	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Please.........do not expect to get a rational answer from Christine about this subject. She looks upon Indians as if they were puppies in a dog pound. Jim

To: The Philosopher who wrote (42205)	6/28/1999 12:05:00 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

'Scuse me, I am only a lowly Chippewah, but if you want to give Manhatten to someone, I'll take it.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (42205)	6/29/1999 2:20:00 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

The Native American never believed that they owned the land, so we couldn't have stolen it. Actually they just had a different (communal) concept of ownership. They always maintained they owned their territory and our government has never disputed that formally, except for a very brief period during the Articles of Confederation period. Nobody owned it. That was contrary to their belief system. We found something that nobody else owned, and took ownership of it. Sorry, I feel compelled to butt in when I see nonsense in place of historical reality. The federal government has acknowledged the prior title of Indian nations since Pres. Washington's time. And was pretty scrupulous up to the 1880's about about being legally correct in purchasing title through treaties of cession. Of course, virtually none of these purchases were "fair and square". Coercion, corruption, and sometimes warfare was common and the compensation was ridiculously low. Nevertheless, most (though not all) U.S. territory was legally purchased from it's acknowledged owners by the federal government. Given the vast disparity in population and power between the U.S. and the Indians something like this was inevitable. This doesn't apply to the allotment period beginning in 1887 and continuing up through 1934. During this period, allotment was generally imposed on tribal governments and tens of millions of acres were declared "surplus" and "sold" by the government acting as trustee to itself at $1.25 per acre. Much of this was valuable oil land in Oklahoma, which is probably why the allotment policy was adopted in the first place. These would have amounted to unconstitutional "takings" forbidden by the 5th amendment except for the plenary power doctrine recognized by the Supreme Court (Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 1903). The plenary power doctrine basically says Congress has unlimited power to do anything with Indians and their property it wishes.