[Discussion] Is it wrong to ask for reparations?

[Multiply]

This is mostly conjecture, point of view and minor historical points, which I suppose mine is to.

But you cannot justify evil with evil. America where supposed to have the moral high ground, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were test sites. And at least Japan and Germany acknowledge what they did was horrific, OK Japan had to have there arm seriously twisted but still. My main point which may have been lost in passion, is that at least they admitted there atrocities and Japan has apologized and I believe Germany too but don't hold me to it.

America still prop up there ego by saying it was necessary, when it was a act befitting the evil of the enemy and yet America keep taking the WW2 high ground and they have no right to.

I get just as passionate over German and Japanese atrocities but they weren't on discussion.

Nah I can't agree. I think it was necessary to drop at least one bomb. If we hadn't we would have lost millions of our own soldiers(Not to be selfish). It's a war and your main priority is to win without extreme amounts of losses. Had we planned an invasion we probably would have lost millions and lost even more ships. It was worth it in the end.

I agree with your point on those cities being test sites though. The scientists had absolutely no idea what would happen. People thought the world would be ripped apart because of it.

 

[Callypigia]

The difference is that the only reason native Americans live that way is because there land was stolen, hoodwinked and taken from them. Meaning that everyone living in America who is not Native American is living on stolen land while they live in the gutter. Latin Americans and such are immigrants, not indigenous people.

Well if that's the case, and I agreed with you then I would expect the guilty parties to pay reparations. And by your logic, its derivative of ancestry, so all peoples from the United Kingdom are responsible. It was their colonists, it was their government funding, it was their soldiers that started the entire genocide of the American Indians. Since America, including White America, are largely immigrants as well, it falls to the original aggressor, England and Spain (again using your logic). And while we're at it, the UK also owes reparations to all Indians (from India), Pakistanis, Egyptians, Irish, and Scottish for a thousand years of theft, rape, and murder.

 

[NaNaNaaaaa]

Well if that's the case, and I agreed with you then I would expect the guilty parties to pay reparations. And by your logic, its derivative of ancestry, so all peoples from the United Kingdom are responsible. It was their colonists, it was their government funding, it was their soldiers that started the entire genocide of the American Indians. Since America, including White America, are largely immigrants as well, it falls to the original aggressor, England and Spain (again using your logic). And while we're at it, the UK also owes reparations to all Indians (from India), Pakistanis, Egyptians, Irish, and Scottish for a thousand years of theft, rape, and murder.

America was settled by the English, Swedes, Dutch and Spanish as well as others.

The war of Independence was over decades before the serious persecution of Native Americans begun.

America can't blame Europe for the eradication of Native Americans, it was there doing, they were independent by that point, they were Americans not Europeans.

But that is not the point, its not an argument about who started it but who is causing it now.

We gave back India, Hong Kong and all the others. Scotland was not conquered it was unified, though that's a technicality, and they recently got a vote of independence and yes, we still have Northern Ireland. But the Irish and Scottish are not segregated or treated as second class citizens and freak show attractions and this is now not historical.

Americans live on stolen land and they live on it now in while the people who own the land are segregated and persecuted and people complain because they want to live on that land but not pay for it. I know its not black and white and that's fair enough but its still true.

Now the Australian Aborigines the UK owes restitution to, but they got independence so now Australia can pay for it, the're living there and still stealing the land, not us.

It's simple, Americans can stop paying restitution to Native Americans when they give back what they took.

 

[Multiply]

America was settled by the English, Swedes, Dutch and Spanish as well as others.

The war of Independence was over decades before the serious persecution of Native Americans begun.

America can't blame Europe for the eradication of Native Americans, it was there doing, they were independent by that point, they were Americans not Europeans.

But that is not the point, its not an argument about who started it but who is causing it now.

We gave back India, Hong Kong and all the others. Scotland was not conquered it was unified, though that's a technicality, and they recently got a vote of independence and yes, we still have Northern Ireland. But the Irish and Scottish are not segregated or treated as second class citizens and freak show attractions and this is now not historical.

Americans live on stolen land and they live on it now in while the people who own the land are segregated and persecuted and people complain because they want to live on that land but not pay for it. I know its not black and white and that's fair enough but its still true.

Now the Australian Aborigines the UK owes restitution to, but they got independence so now Australia can pay for it, the're living there and still stealing the land, not us.

It's simple, Americans can stop paying restitution to Native Americans when they give back what they took.

Christopher Columbus? Lol.

 

[NaNaNaaaaa]

Christopher Columbus? Lol.

What does he have to do with the price of kippers?

 

[Multiply]

What does he have to do with the price of kippers?

Excuse me?

 

[NaNaNaaaaa]

Excuse me?

What does he have to do with the price of kippers? In other words, what does he have to do with the subject matter being discussed?

 

[Callypigia]

America was settled by the English, Swedes, Dutch and Spanish as well as others.

The war of Independence was over decades before the serious persecution of Native Americans begun.

America can't blame Europe for the eradication of Native Americans, it was there doing, they were independent by that point, they were Americans not Europeans.

But that is not the point, its not an argument about who started it but who is causing it now.

We gave back India, Hong Kong and all the others. Scotland was not conquered it was unified, though that's a technicality, and they recently got a vote of independence and yes, we still have Northern Ireland. But the Irish and Scottish are not segregated or treated as second class citizens and freak show attractions and this is now not historical.

Americans live on stolen land and they live on it now in while the people who own the land are segregated and persecuted and people complain because they want to live on that land but not pay for it. I know its not black and white and that's fair enough but its still true.

Now the Australian Aborigines the UK owes restitution to, but they got independence so now Australia can pay for it, the're living there and still stealing the land, not us.

It's simple, Americans can stop paying restitution to Native Americans when they give back what they took.

Your logic is so flawed it's hard to debate.
1. Scotland and Ireland have only been unified a few times in British history through Stuart family line. Most "unification," theft of properties, and wealth were taken through blood shed. Serfdom imposed on those people through heavy taxation and alienation of personal rights was no different than slavery.
2. American Indians are not openly prosecuted or denied human rights in America, and they have not been since the 1960s. Your facts are bullshit. There are also many social programs specifically designed to specifically aid American Indians to further their education, housing loans, and medical needs. On top of that the US government has millions of dollars set aside for tribes that have been accruing interest since their land were "bought" from them 140 years ago. That money is being denied by the tribe counsels because it's considered "blood money" and would admit that they sold their land.
3. You are still saying that current Americans are responsible for their ancestors actions to re compensate current American Indians' ancestors, but current UK citizens are not responsible for compensating the ancestors of those they've conquered and exploited for hundreds of years because they gave back lands. You cannot place monetary values to the suffering of humans. England has not given equally back what they took.
3a. Don't minimize England's involvement of what happened to blacks and American Indians in US history. Colonization, slave trade, the French and Indian War, the War of 1812, even the American Civil War had involvement of England that exploited, enslaved, or directly killed American Indians and blacks.
4. All people of Anglo Saxon and Norman lineage in England, Scotland, and Ireland are entitled to give back their lands to the Britons, the people they conquered and stole their lands. You see most English people are living on stolen land as well. As is EVERYONE else in the world's history. Again territories change through politics, war, breeding, and trade.
5. More archaeological evidence is showing that American Indians co-habitated and eventually drove out (through breeding or war - its unknown) indigenous peoples who came over on land bridges from Europe 10,000+ years ago.

 

[NaNaNaaaaa]

Nah I can't agree. I think it was necessary to drop at least one bomb. If we hadn't we would have lost millions of our own soldiers(Not to be selfish). It's a war and your main priority is to win without extreme amounts of losses. Had we planned an invasion we probably would have lost millions and lost even more ships. It was worth it in the end.

I agree with your point on those cities being test sites though. The scientists had absolutely no idea what would happen. People thought the world would be ripped apart because of it.

Yes, that was there logic, that killing over a 100 thousand people in a horrific manor was OK because it might save a few ships, Japan would have surrendered in weeks, once the Soviet Union declared war on them they surrendered and would have anyway. If you can go and listen to the survivors stories and then come back and say that America don't need to apologise and have the moral high ground, then you worry me.

Your logic is so flawed it's hard to debate.
1. Scotland and Ireland have only been unified a few times in British history through Stuart family line. Most "unification," theft of properties, and wealth were taken through blood shed. Serfdom imposed on those people through heavy taxation and alienation of personal rights was no different than slavery.
2. American Indians are not openly prosecuted or denied human rights in America, and they have not been since the 1960s. Your facts are bullshit. There are also many social programs specifically designed to specifically aid American Indians to further their education, housing loans, and medical needs. On top of that the US government has millions of dollars set aside for tribes that have been accruing interest since their land were "bought" from them 140 years ago. That money is being denied by the tribe counsels because it's considered "blood money" and would admit that they sold their land.
3. You are still saying that current Americans are responsible for their ancestors actions to re compensate current American Indians' ancestors, but current UK citizens are not responsible for compensating the ancestors of those they've conquered and exploited for hundreds of years because they gave back lands. You cannot place monetary values to the suffering of humans. England has not given equally back what they took.
3a. Don't minimize England's involvement of what happened to blacks and American Indians in US history. Colonization, slave trade, the French and Indian War, the War of 1812, even the American Civil War had involvement of England that exploited, enslaved, or directly killed American Indians and blacks.
4. All people of Anglo Saxon and Norman lineage in England, Scotland, and Ireland are entitled to give back their lands to the Britons, the people they conquered and stole their lands. You see most English people are living on stolen land as well. As is EVERYONE else in the world's history. Again territories change through politics, war, breeding, and trade.
5. More archaeological evidence is showing that American Indians co-habitated and eventually drove out (through breeding or war - its unknown) indigenous peoples who came over on land bridges from Europe 10,000+ years ago.

1) The Scots were not slaves, this isn't Braveheart and trust me, the Scots gave almost as good as they got. And besides that's history. Scotland not only had an independence vote last year but the SNP have a good chance of getting into power through coalition in May! Scottish people go and do whatever they please, no one hears a Scottish accent and thinks less of them.

2) Oh come on, American Indians are often treated with the same racial contempt as African Americans, in fact in some ways more. They may not be denied human rights but they are looked down on and that is restitution basically that you are describing.
Of course they sold their land, what would have happened if they said no?

3) You can't repay history. The reason that restitution is agreeable with Native Americans is because their suffering and degradation is not only historical its now. That's why I think we owe the Aborigines because its the same thing. Only we don't because we are no longer stealing their lands, the Australians are, still think we owe them though.
You are using hundreds of years old history to justify a modern point of view. This isn't about history. The fact is Native Americans have been segregated and forced into poverty now, while Americans are living on the land they murdered for and stole, the reason it is agreeable is because of that.

If Native Americans lived healthy, prosperous lives then it could be chalked up to bad history and restoration would not be needed but the fact that they need education and health programs proves that they are currently, not historically, suffering because people are living on their land.

You can't go back 10000 years to prove a current point.

History is history but Native Americans are suffering now because of what is being done to them now, they are not given equal opportunity or chances and thats because of their race and beliefs.

 

[Multiply]

Your logic is so flawed it's hard to debate.
1. Scotland and Ireland have only been unified a few times in British history through Stuart family line. Most "unification," theft of properties, and wealth were taken through blood shed. Serfdom imposed on those people through heavy taxation and alienation of personal rights was no different than slavery.
2. American Indians are not openly prosecuted or denied human rights in America, and they have not been since the 1960s. Your facts are bullshit. There are also many social programs specifically designed to specifically aid American Indians to further their education, housing loans, and medical needs. On top of that the US government has millions of dollars set aside for tribes that have been accruing interest since their land were "bought" from them 140 years ago. That money is being denied by the tribe counsels because it's considered "blood money" and would admit that they sold their land.
3. You are still saying that current Americans are responsible for their ancestors actions to re compensate current American Indians' ancestors, but current UK citizens are not responsible for compensating the ancestors of those they've conquered and exploited for hundreds of years because they gave back lands. You cannot place monetary values to the suffering of humans. England has not given equally back what they took.
3a. Don't minimize England's involvement of what happened to blacks and American Indians in US history. Colonization, slave trade, the French and Indian War, the War of 1812, even the American Civil War had involvement of England that exploited, enslaved, or directly killed American Indians and blacks.
4. All people of Anglo Saxon and Norman lineage in England, Scotland, and Ireland are entitled to give back their lands to the Britons, the people they conquered and stole their lands. You see most English people are living on stolen land as well. As is EVERYONE else in the world's history. Again territories change through politics, war, breeding, and trade.
5. More archaeological evidence is showing that American Indians co-habitated and eventually drove out (through breeding or war - its unknown) indigenous peoples who came over on land bridges from Europe 10,000+ years ago.

I hate the term American Indian. To this day people are denying their identities as the indigenous population before mass murder,rape, and relocation. It's gross :|

Yes, that was there logic, that killing over a 100 thousand people in a horrific manor was OK because it might save a few ships, Japan would have surrendered in weeks, once the Soviet Union declared war on them they surrendered and would have anyway. If you can go and listen to the survivors stories and then come back and say that America don't need to apologise and have the moral high ground, then you worry me.

No. Kill 100 thousand people was okay to save millions of our own people. I don't think you understand that concept. The thought process at the time was lose hundreds of thousands of our soldiers, or drop these 2 bombs and end the war immediately. Logically anyone with a brain would pick the latter of the two because it ensures victory with minimal losses from your side. That's all there is to it.

Saying the Soviets would have declared war and the Japanese would have surrendered is simple conjecture.

 

[NaNaNaaaaa]

I hate the term American Indian. To this day people are denying their identities as the indigenous population before mass murder,rape, and relocation. It's gross :|




No. Kill 100 thousand people was okay to save millions of our own people. I don't think you understand that concept. The thought process at the time was lose hundreds of thousands of our soldiers, or drop these 2 bombs and end the war immediately. Logically anyone with a brain would pick the latter of the two because it ensures victory with minimal losses from your side. That's all there is to it.

Saying the Soviets would have declared war and the Japanese would have surrendered is simple conjecture.

The Soviet Union did declare war, it was that which pushed the Japanese to surrender, not the bombs. Watch the survivors stories. Besides its about moral high ground, the Japanese and Germany acknowledge their WW2 atrocities, America refuses to and still keeps trying to take the moral high ground. If you are going to do something evil, at least admit to it.

 

[Multiply]

The Soviet Union did declare war, it was that which pushed the Japanese to surrender, not the bombs. Watch the survivors stories. Besides its about moral high ground, the Japanese and Germany acknowledge their WW2 atrocities, America refuses to and still keeps trying to take the moral high ground. If you are going to do something evil, at least admit to it.

Dropping bombs in war is evil? What Lol.

 

[NaNaNaaaaa]

Dropping bombs in war is evil? What Lol.

Of course it is, its evil on all sides. Besides, these were not normal bombs, what they did to people was on a level far beyond what a normal bomb can do. Try watching the survivors stories.

 

[Zexion~]

The problem is that its taking money from taxpayers (who had nothing to do with what happened) to pay people entitlements that they aren't entitled to (their ancestors may have been). American Indians aren't the only ones who live in poverty. Many blacks, Latinos, and whites live in ghettos, trailer parks, etc., without adequate living amenities (i.e., running water).

Yes well Native Americans could be roaming free right now if we didn't take their land and throw them onto reservations Lol so i'd say they're the ones these tax payers are most indebted to, a few extra dollars come tax time is chump change compared to the land we booted them off of

 

[Callypigia]

Yes well Native Americans could be roaming free right now if we didn't take their land and throw them onto reservations Lol so i'd say they're the ones these tax payers are most indebted to, a few extra dollars come tax time is chump change compared to the land we booted them off of

The land is no ones, it existed before humans and will exist after humans. We are all just temporary squatters. A few dollars to appease someone's guilt doesn't right wrongs. It's just an insult; hush money, an entitlement which is just another form of abuse. It's not the land that was taken it is the spirit.

 

[NaNaNaaaaa]

The land is no ones, it existed before humans and will exist after humans. We are all just temporary squatters. A few dollars to appease someone's guilt doesn't right wrongs. It's just an insult; hush money, an entitlement which is just another form of abuse. It's not the land that was taken it is the spirit.

Maybe so but its hard to regain any spirit when your stomach is growling and the plaster is peeling from the walls

 

[Aim64C]

Wow... where do I even begin?

This is mostly conjecture, point of view and minor historical points, which I suppose mine is to.

The flaw in your thinking is assuming that I come from a different field of thought from you.

I don't. I've just researched and thought farther.

But you cannot justify evil with evil.

You should study evil a little more so as to be capable of properly identifying it.

If evil is merely defined as creating unpleasant circumstances, then the world is fundamentally evil and one who believes this can never truly be happy.

America where supposed to have the moral high ground,

Apologizing for Hiroshima and Nagasaki is ridiculous.

Why?

Because we aren't.

If another nation were to attack Pearl Harbor, again, and commit to a war against our allies - we may very well nuke them in retaliation. Would we be wrong for doing so?

If we would, then why should we apologize for something we have every intention of doing under similar circumstances in the future?

It's like saying: "I'm sorry" after running down a burglar and executing him after he trips in the ditch.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were test sites.

They were cities that were made targets for war efforts.

To argue that there was any single motive for assigning those cities as targets for any given ordnance is just plain ignorant. Yes - there were those who wanted field data on the effectiveness of nuclear weapons.

There were also people who wanted to send Russia a message.

And at least Japan and Germany acknowledge what they did was horrific, OK Japan had to have there arm seriously twisted but still. My main point which may have been lost in passion, is that at least they admitted there atrocities and Japan has apologized and I believe Germany too but don't hold me to it.

But you're holding America to it?

The point is that there's nothing to apologize for. If Germany should apologize to anyone, it should be their own people for being able to be so easily swept up in the anti-jewish propaganda and disgracing their legacy in doing so.

As a person of German lineage - I look down upon the integrity of the native Germans. Many over there have no rightful claim to the heritage of the Germanic people, as I see it. ****ing communist degenerates looking for the world to hand them a living. They insult the honor of their blood with their feeble minds.

Granted, I have a similar critical view of most of Europe in that way. The people who broke their backs building nations, innovating solutions, and exploring the world with a perpetual hunger for knowledge gave birth to children who expect to learn a job and forever be content with their life.

The same thing is happening here, in America, and it is equally revolting.

But I digress.

War is nothing to apologize for. Germany decided it wanted to take over Europe. If they succeeded, who would be apologizing? No one.

Why should it be any different just because we succeeded in driving them back? Is their apology worth anything, truly?

America still prop up there ego by saying it was necessary, when it was a act befitting the evil of the enemy and yet America keep taking the WW2 high ground and they have no right to.

When you come up with a humane way for two people, who have decided to escalate a dispute to the death, to go about trying to kill each other, let me know.

Until then, I'm not going to entertain the idea that war is somehow a contest of moral conduct.

War is about killing the enemy. Those who are alive at the end have the luxury of contemplating the morality of what they did.

I get just as passionate over German and Japanese atrocities but they weren't on discussion.

When are they ever discussed?

The difference is that the only reason native Americans live that way is because there land was stolen, hoodwinked and taken from them. Meaning that everyone living in America who is not Native American is living on stolen land while they live in the gutter. Latin Americans and such are immigrants, not indigenous people.

So, what you are saying is that the reason the Jews were successful in the nations they dispersed to following the destruction of their nation is because their land was stolen from them and they were forced into foreign lands?

Or the reason the Germans who were forced off of their land by droughts and political factors were successful in America and Russia because their land was stolen from them?

The success of a population is a product of culture more so than anything else.

Why have Native Americans who have assimilated with western culture been successful, while those who live within the culture of the reservations are not as successful?

[video=youtube;Eu_bKJ11O0M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu_bKJ11O0M[/video]

Nah I can't agree. I think it was necessary to drop at least one bomb. If we hadn't we would have lost millions of our own soldiers(Not to be selfish). It's a war and your main priority is to win without extreme amounts of losses. Had we planned an invasion we probably would have lost millions and lost even more ships. It was worth it in the end.

I agree with your point on those cities being test sites though. The scientists had absolutely no idea what would happen. People thought the world would be ripped apart because of it.

We had already tested one bomb by that point in time.

The assertion that we would have lost vast numbers of troops is somewhat uncertain.

While my grandfather was on the first invasion wave onto Japan, proper (yes, we did still invade) and there was some combat with small groups that did not want to accept surrender; the industrial power of the nation had already crumbled and we now know that elements of American command were aware of the Emperor's intention and efforts to seek surrender to both the U.S. and Russia.

Indications are that the primary motive behind the presidential decision to use the atomic bomb were on the part of sending a sign to the Russians that we could us small numbers of aircraft to inflict unacceptable casualties upon their cities if they were to continue their advance.

Whether or not this was truly necessary can never truly be known. The doctrine of Nuclear Deterrence has been challenged within strategic think-tanks and there are many times where the concept has been shown to fail and, perhaps, only further escalate issues that would not have even been issues when dealing with conventional weapons.

IE - Nuclear weapons just up the ante on the classic game of "chicken" between nations in an arms race and do not actually reduce the willingness of these nations to engage in saber rattling antics. It just becomes a much bigger saber to rattle.

Yes, that was there logic, that killing over a 100 thousand people in a horrific manor was OK because it might save a few ships, Japan would have surrendered in weeks, once the Soviet Union declared war on them they surrendered and would have anyway. If you can go and listen to the survivors stories and then come back and say that America don't need to apologise and have the moral high ground, then you worry me.

Hun, after you've seen what an unarmed (but trained) human being can do to someone within fifteen feet of them in less time than it takes you to sit down in a chair.... you begin to worry about everyone - particularly who are not trained and have absolutely no concept of what they are capable of doing to others in their ignorance.

As for the arguments over what Japan would have done or wouldn't have done - do keep in mind that we are monday-morning quarterbacking. It is just as easy to interpret the Emperor's orders to try and surrender to Stalin as being a will of Japan to ally with the Russians (from the American perspective).

The bomb, thus, would have been a sign not only to Russia, but also to the Japanese that they would have no chance of surviving if they tried to work with the Russians behind our backs.

It is easy to view our understanding of history through the scope of history while the people in that moment had a far more limited view. Further, you can't make the assumption that events would play out the same way without the bombings. You can submit the argument that the "worst case scenario" is Japan begins looking at the different terms of surrender handed to them by the U.S. and Russia - but it's also quite possible that would have resulted in the use of the atomic bomb on Russian cities if Russia began trying to exert pressure in its favor and the U.S. began using nuclear weapons as cheaper solutions to massive force deployments and delivery of conventional weapons (by that time, our nuclear industry was already ramping up, considerably).

2) Oh come on, American Indians are often treated with the same racial contempt as African Americans, in fact in some ways more. They may not be denied human rights but they are looked down on and that is restitution basically that you are describing.
Of course they sold their land, what would have happened if they said no?

You have evidence of contempt?

Please share.

3) You can't repay history. The reason that restitution is agreeable with Native Americans is because their suffering and degradation is not only historical its now. That's why I think we owe the Aborigines because its the same thing. Only we don't because we are no longer stealing their lands, the Australians are, still think we owe them though.
You are using hundreds of years old history to justify a modern point of view. This isn't about history. The fact is Native Americans have been segregated and forced into poverty now, while Americans are living on the land they murdered for and stole, the reason it is agreeable is because of that.

So, again, I propose a simple question:

Should I, son of two predominantly German lineages that immigrated here in the late 1800s, have to pay?

The land my family owned was legally bought and paid for from its present owners.

Why should my brothers - or my sons and/or daughters have to pay reparations? Do they get a pass because my maternal lineage stems from some native ancestry?

And what percentage is reasonable?

2% of my pay? 3%?

10?

50?

Hell, perhaps I should just be required to let them breed my wife if they so desire it? Not sure what the women would get out of that, but whatever.

Here's another thought:

You must be registered for see links

From the communist overlords in DC:

"1.1 million

Increase in the nation's American Indian and Alaska Native population between the 2000 Census and 2010 Census. The population of this group increased by 26.7 percent during this period compared with the overall population growth of 9.7 percent.
Source: Census 2000 Brief: Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin "

So...

Those additional 1.1 million get benefits, too, right?

From same:

"8.6 million

The projected population of American Indians and Alaska Natives, including those of more than one race, on July 1, 2050. They would comprise 2 percent of the total population.
Source: Population projections"

That more than doubles the population over 40 years. That is an annual population increase of roughly 3% (in simple averaging).

You must be registered for see links

Average U.S. population growth has slowed to less than 1% per year and the Native American populations are expected to comprise 2% of the population (up from 1.5%) by 2050.

Assuming the trend continues, an ever-growing population of Natives would be expected to be paid by a proportionately smaller number of people - presumably into eternity.

I trust you are competent enough in math to understand the implication.

What you propose is slavery.

If Native Americans lived healthy, prosperous lives then it could be chalked up to bad history and restoration would not be needed but the fact that they need education and health programs proves that they are currently, not historically, suffering because people are living on their land.

What leads you to believe the Natives would suddenly become educated and prosperous people if we were to leave?

Nothing.

Hence why you suggest we should stay here and feel guilty for them while paying them to breed.

What you are essentially suggesting is that Native Americans are incapable of utilizing the resources at their disposal to better themselves and must, therefor, be handed preferential outcomes from a society that is capable of producing them.

You can't go back 10000 years to prove a current point.

Which is exactly what you do. You blame the current issues facing the Native Americans on events that have absolutely nothing to do with any of the people alive today.

History is history but Native Americans are suffering now because of what is being done to them now, they are not given equal opportunity or chances and thats because of their race and beliefs.

Do you have any examples of how they are not given equal opportunity as any citizen within the U.S. would be?

 

[Zexion~]

The land is no ones, it existed before humans and will exist after humans. We are all just temporary squatters. A few dollars to appease someone's guilt doesn't right wrongs. It's just an insult; hush money, an entitlement which is just another form of abuse. It's not the land that was taken it is the spirit.

Lol if Humans insist on being above all other organisms in intelligence and fairness throwing people who would have gladly shared their land (mostly) off it isn't the way to go, I don't agree that just giving them a very low amount of many makes it right i'm just saying they deserve it more than the blacks and whatever else

 

[Aim64C]

Yes well Native Americans could be roaming free right now if we didn't take their land and throw them onto reservations Lol so i'd say they're the ones these tax payers are most indebted to, a few extra dollars come tax time is chump change compared to the land we booted them off of

I already pay enough taxes.

If you wish to steal more money from me to fund your little communist commune, you can file your petition with the muzzle of my rifle.

I owe "natives" nothing.

I was born on this land. I was raised in this land. I know this land better than any of the "natives" alive, today.

My family never owned slaves. My family did not drive the natives off of their land. My family legally purchased their land from the people who had owned, maintained, and lived on the land for generations prior.

Frankly - tough shit. If you feel so guilty about it, then -you- fork over your money to them, kiddo. Start a charity.

Otherwise, kindly sodomize yourself with a cactus.

 

[Multiply]

I already pay enough taxes.

If you wish to steal more money from me to fund your little communist commune, you can file your petition with the muzzle of my rifle.

I owe "natives" nothing.

I was born on this land. I was raised in this land. I know this land better than any of the "natives" alive, today.

My family never owned slaves. My family did not drive the natives off of their land. My family legally purchased their land from the people who had owned, maintained, and lived on the land for generations prior.

Frankly - tough shit. If you feel so guilty about it, then -you- fork over your money to them, kiddo. Start a charity.

Otherwise, kindly sodomize yourself with a cactus.

Spoken like a true white man brother.

You must be registered for see images