Did the Native Americans deserved to be Conquered?

Title. What to you think of the European "genocide" of the Natives?

 

Pretty much a no-brainer unless you're some sort of royal-fascistic nut who wants to bring back slavery, or maybe work for ISIS. If you doubt read 1491, New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus.

OTOH, as that book itself outlines, the main damage to Native Nations was done when Columbus landed. The diseases bought by Columbus killed vastly more people than the colonists ever even dreamed of. It has to be wondered what we coulda, woulda or even shoulda if we knew what an epic disaster we were about to visit on America's indigenes. The supreme irony is that one can make a reasonable if ruthless argument that the nonnative colonization of the Americas was a necessity in face of the unmitigated catastrophe of depopulation those very colonists had brought

 

they where primitive and way behind in tachnology. they where gonna get conquered on dayn or another.

 

This is a really good poll.

We needed to replace the primitives with good, civilized folk from Europe.

It has proved to be a wise thing to do since the USA has united with Israel to lead the Civilized World against the Islamic Terrorists.

Without the USA, the world would be run by ISIS.

The uncivilized native Indians therefore had no option but to surrender to us, the Americans and Israelis.

 

Conquered may not be the right term. Sure, they were over run and displaced, but then they struck oil in Oklahoma, and have you been to a native casino lately? I work at one, and they sure aren't crying when that armored truck shows up to haul away all that money lost by-guess who?
Enjoy!

 

I have a problem with people WITH THAT MUCH LAND claiming it as their own. I still have that problem.

 

"Before white man, all this land have casino everywhere"

But you have no problem with us claiming it? And the Native Americans never really "claimed" it in the Western sense. They generally had no problems with individual settlers, even when they farmed and fenced. Hollywood notwithstanding the numbers of settlers just killed by Amerinds for no reason was in the hundreds over a century

 

This is absolutely ridiculous. A great deal of native Americans live in third world conditions.

 

Unoccupied and unutilized??? I have no problem claiming it.

 

Anyway, this is a stupid question. Nobody deserves to be trampled under foot and assimilated by a foreign culture that views them as inferior. Societal development is a not an indicator of how much humane treatment a population deserves. Even if it were, development isn't linear, and that native societies in South America weren't too far behind Europe despite lacking the wheel and writing. Even the North American civilisations had something to offer, otherwise the US wouldn't have used their system of government as a blueprint. This argument basically boils down to "if they were a legit society, why didn't they have guns." A question you could ask of Europeans, as guns were a Chinese invention.

 

Unfortunately, that is true, and a great deal of that situation has to do with the fact that not all native tribes are "recognized" by the government, and therefore cannot establish gaming operations in order to improve their lot. However, I have first hand knowledge through my experience with the tribe that employs me that this is being addressed and will eventually result in change for the better. It may be of interest to note that, in my area at least, in order to engage in gaming enterprises, part of the pact with the state requires that the tribes return 2% of their revenue to their respective communities.
Enjoy!

 

The newest data is that the Amerind did occupy and utilize it quite well. The pre-Columbian population figures were at least 5x what were thought and may have been much more. What's significant is that Ameinds utilized the land in such a way as to support probably the same population as Europe then had, (and had pretty much worn out Europe with) in a totally sustainable manner for millennia

 

Heres what I dont get. How come the Natives in the US didnt want settlers moving in and wars resulted from that, but the natives of Mexico didnt mind the Spanish colonizing and moving in?

 

Did Native Americans "deserved" to be conquered ?

The question should be was it legal and under the Law of Nature / Vattel's "Law of Nations" in which the American Constitution is based upon, it was legal. Just about every civilized nation in the world today and back during the 18th Century went by the Law of Nations.

It was legal at the time and it would be legal today.

CHAP. XVIII.
OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATION IN A COUNTRY.

Excerpt from § 208. A question on this subject.

>"...There is another celebrated question, to which the discovery of the New World has principally given rise. It is asked whether a nation may lawfully take possession of some part of a vast country, in which there are none but eratic nations whose scanty population is incapable of occupying the whole? We have already observed (§ 81), in establishing the obligation to cultivate the earth, that those nations cannot exclusively appropriate to themselves more land than they have occasion for, or more than they are able to settle and cultivate. Their unsettled habitation in those immense regions cannot be accounted a true and legal possession; and the people of Europe, too closely pent up at home, finding land of which the savages stood in no particular need, and of which they made no actual and constant use, were lawfully entitled to take possession of it, and settle it with colonies. The earth, as we have already observed, belongs to mankind in general, and was designed to furnish them with subsistence: if each nation had, from the beginning, resolved to appropriate to itself a vast country, that the people might live only by hunting, fishing, and wild fruits, our globe would not be sufficient to maintain a tenth part of its present inhabitants. We do not, therefore, deviate from the views of nature, in confining the Indians within narrower limits, However, we cannot help praising the moderation of the English Puritans who first settled in New England; who, notwithstanding their being furnished with a charter from their sovereign, purchased of the Indians the land of which they intended to take possession.2 This laudable example was followed by William Penn, and the colony of Quakers that he conducted to Pennsylvania. "<

http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm

FYI:
Under the Law of Nations, ACA aka Obamacare is illegal. Just saying.

 

The "natives" did not have any established government. They had no established set of laws. They were simply a backwards civilization which had not yet even discovered the wheel. There was no genocide.

Those same natives could have just as easily decided to live in peace with the settlers, but they chose otherwise.

 

Not in Oklahoma. We don't have reservations here. The Indian nations own busineses--not just casinos. And not just in Oklahoma, but internationally. The difference between Oklahoma Nations and a Souix reservation is that one is assimilated and one is like a ghetto.

 

Every reservation I have seen across the country is an absolute filthy slum. There must be a logical reason which explains that?

 

The key is assimilation Into a positive culture. Perhaps the "American Dream" is considered a sell out? I work with the Muscogee Nation. Their mission is to prosper....which in turn gives them the resources to continue theor cultural heritage and atonomy . They give back to the community ( and they make sure everyone knows it). They have the resources to keep their nation together, their language alive, and take care of there own. They are capitalists and free market. A reservation is just caging people away from opportunities.

 

They didn't over-farm, which goes a long way toward sustaining the land.

 

Of course they did; that's why they migrated. Try slash and burn agriculture sometime ... Try hunting out an area and see if you stay in that area anyway.

 

And re this romanticization of native Americans, they weren't 'noble savages', they were greedy, petty, imperialist when they could get away with it, racist, criminal, etc., just like peoples everywhere else on the planet. It's time to lose the silly hippie fantasies about native Americans. They played duplicitous, back-biting geo-political games, conquest campaigns, practiced slavery, and happily murdered each other, and anybody else as well, for money when the opportunity and means presented themselves. Some were noble, honest, and wise, most weren't any different than their 'conquerors'. The Plains Indians would stampede entire herds of buffalo off of cliffs, just to get a few pounds of meat and a hide or two, and leave the rest crippled and suffering, to die and rot away. The only differences is that white men exterminated the buffalo on a larger scale, that's all. And so on ...

 

The Law of Nations is the law of some nations. Basically, it was a system of laws drawn up by known imperialists who committed similar acts of barabrism and terror against other nationalities around the world. The excuse that this was the past and that they did not know better, or that their culture made them ignorant to the consequences of war, imperialism, theft, creulty, etc...is a poor one.

 

Like it or not, "Natural Law" aka Vattel's "Law of Nations" has been adopted or used to write most nations constitutions and international law of today is based upon "The Law of Nations."

Before the 20th Century there was no such thing as "Marxist culturalism" aka "political correctness" in which some people, monarchs, dictators, poltical organizations would ignore the "Law of Nations" and make (*)(*)(*)(*) up to further a political agenda. Today and in the past we have those who ignored the "Law of Nations" examples, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Popot, Obama, progressive liberals, etc.

The Constitution of the United States is based upon "Natural Law" aka Vattel's "Law of Nations."

"Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness, How the Natural Law Concept of G. W. Leibniz Inspired America's Founding Fathers."

The Law of Nations and The Constitution

>``We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.''
{--Preamble of The Constitution of the United States}
Emmerich de Vattel's text, "The Law of Nations" was crucial in shaping American thinking about the nature of constitutions..."<
http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id4.html


Alexander Hamilton's Approach to Natural Law

"Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness, How the Natural Law Concept of G. W. Leibniz Inspired America's Founding Fathers."

>" Alexander Hamilton was the key organizer of the movement to hold the Constitutional Convention, that wrote the U.S. Constitution. As the nations's first Secretary of the Treasury, he played a crucual role in shaping the policies that became known as the American System. Here we examine how his thinking was shaped by Emmerich de Vattel's work, "The Law of Nations.",,,"<
continue -> http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id5.html

 

Lets not forget that when slavery became illegal in the United States with the Emancipation Proclamation Act of 1863, many Native American tribes continued practicing slavery and there was a active slave trade between the tribes being conducted until the late 1890's.

 

What is the premise for the Op's argument considering these idiots were looking for India, and if there was no buffer called the Americas, than they would tried it on us, only difference is that they would have been met with the finest of Mughal Cannons, anyways advocating the Genocide of millions of people is not civilized. This arguement is faulty because Europeans were sitting and killing each other for centuries. The argument does not hold any logical ground unless the Op cares to elaborate