Native American "Indian" Removal: Are Our Actions Justified?

Well, say I want to feed myself by farming, and I can't because Indians come by and try to kill me and my family. Which is a need, and which is a want? I can understand both points of view, they were both justified in trying to live on the Earth, they were both arguably justified in trying to kill each other. That's why I say our conflicts with Indians weren't a matter of morality. It's just like bears and wolves competing for the same herd of buffalo.
 
no, YOUR actions are not justified at all, first, you made them look like savage people, just like europeans did before with black africans, puted them in zoos as if they were animals saying that they are the most primitive and savage humans. but i think what europeans did in america, was even worse! and also, still the same method in today if you want to conquer a country, or people, pollute their image, make them look like savage people and primitive people, and etc...
exactly what ben ali wanted to do here, send he's small mafias, to ruine public things, and make violence, and then, after baking the story, they say that those are the protesters, idk, maybe to gain some help from western powers, wich they were supporting him since he's first day, and they DO know everything about the situation of dictatorship, same method, pollute the image of some people, to try to win, or to make it easier with causes to kill too
 
pjdude1219 said:
the implication was that columbus was an agent of spain in a spanish founded mission. he wasn't yes the royals of spain funded it but he was not doing the trip for spain.



ity also implies is mission goal was to take new land for spain it wasn't it was a choice.
Click to expand...
He claimed Hispaniola (Bahamas) in the name of Spain. Here's a link to the ship's journal for Thursday, October 11, 1492 when they made landfall:
http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/eurvoya/columbus.html
 
Shadow1 said:
no, YOUR actions are not justified at all, first, you made them look like savage people
Click to expand...
Yes, the colonists were racists, which did make things much worse, but in a sense that's what a clash of cultures generates. The Native Americans were a bit savage, you have to admit.
 
adoucette said:
Well now we know you are not only a moron
Click to expand...
from righty like you I'll take that as a compliment as it means I actually know what I am talking about
but just a basically pathetic individual.
Click to expand...
because I understand theresa wasn't the saint she was made out to be?

Thanks for clarifying that.

Arthur
Click to expand...
Same old right wing bullshit. thanks for clarifying your a child who can't help but insult those who disagree with him.
 
spidergoat said:
Yes, the colonists were racists, which did make things much worse, but in a sense that's what a clash of cultures generates. The Native Americans were a bit savage, you have to admit.
Click to expand...

no not really. at a time when europeans were using a form of total war most native war parties didn't.
 
.

spidergoat said:
Yes, the colonists were racists, which did make things much worse, but in a sense that's what a clash of cultures generates. The Native Americans were a bit savage, you have to admit.
Click to expand...

no they werent, not because they were country side people, for example, here in north africa, the berber race and cultrue, didnt get deleted, but mixed with the arabic one, you can still see the previous berber culture in todays culture in north africa mixed with the arab one, true that the arab one is more present, because the berber cultrue wasnt very wide...
 
pjdude1219 said:
because I understand theresa wasn't the saint she was made out to be?
Click to expand...

And because she wasn't a saint that makes her, in your words, "a cunt"?

Really?

Because now you do really fit the definition of "Ignoranus".

Arthur
 
Last edited:
dbnp48 said:
My mistake. Columbus made his first landing in the Bahamas, then travelled to Cuba and Hispaniola.
Click to expand...

And when he got there he DID claim them for Spain, which supports your original point, even if your Geography was a tad off.
 
adoucette said:
And because she wasn't a saint that makes her, in your words, "a cunt"?
Click to expand...
no. Getting off on other people suffering makes her a cunt.

Really?

Because now you do really fit the definition of "Ignoranus".

Arthur
Click to expand...
How can I fit the definition of a word that doesn't exist. the word you are looking for is ignoramus


secondly because you used a logical fallacy I'm ignorant. I'd say your the ignorant one
 
adoucette said:
And when he got there he DID claim them for Spain, which supports your original point, even if your Geography was a tad off.
Click to expand...

yes he claimed lands but that wasn't the point of the trip. it was a choice. he wasn't commanded to claim land it was a choice which was my point. he could have gone back to spain with out claiming native land for spain. which was the point I was making
 
pjdude1219 said:
yes he claimed lands but that wasn't the point of the trip. it was a choice. he wasn't commanded to claim land it was a choice which was my point. he could have gone back to spain with out claiming native land for spain. which was the point I was making
Click to expand...

No, you said "he was not doing the trip for spain".

But he WAS.

Which is why when he discovered new lands he claimed them for Spain.

And though he was looking for a shorter route, he was most definately an EXPLORER and as an explorer (and the Crown in financing the trip), the chance of finding new lands for Spain was certainly not something they did not consider.

Arthur
 
Last edited:
spidergoat said:
Needs and wants are quite different, aren't they? Why insist on conflating the two? When some Indian comes by the farm you built and cleared with your own hands and kills most of your family, I would call taking a more militant position about them a need, not a want.
Click to expand...
Depends on whose land it was that you "cleared with your own hands", how you came to be on it, and furthermore whether you are in fact justified in generalizing from whoever raided your farm to "them" - all Indians.

Whether the land taken over by the pioneering white tribes in NA was a need or a want of theirs in the first place should be clearly settled, maybe, before the matter of removing the reds from it is addressed via that distinction.

Removal of red tribes from regions desired by other tribes was common in NA at the time, but mostly by other red tribes. The major distinction seems to be that the white tribes changed the terms of possession radically, when they removed someone - they invoked private, non-tribal, ownership of little pieces of the land, and introduced intensive agriculture with draft animals. Does that change the nature of the justification required?
 
Last edited:
They needed it enough to sit in cramped boats on a long and often fatal journey to the new world with their wives and children.
 
spidergoat said:
They needed it enough to sit in cramped boats on a long and often fatal journey to the new world with their wives and children.
Click to expand...
That's not accurate.

That's not how the actual red-removing whites we are discussing got there, and does not describe the context of the situation.

And even if accepted, the question of need versus want remains: people have undertaken similar ventures and hardships in pursuit of wants, when their needs (in some sense) were already met. The Pilgrims, for example, abandoned situations in Europe in which their needs were far better met than could be expected at their destination.
 
iceaura said:
The Pilgrims, for example, abandoned situations in Europe in which their needs were far better met than could be expected at their destination.
Click to expand...
The Pilgrims were fleeing religious persecution.

Here is a relevant paragraph:
"Their leadership came from the religious congregations of English Dissenters who had fled the volatile political environment in the East Midlands of England for the relative calm and tolerance of Holland in the Netherlands. Concerned with losing their cultural identity, the group later arranged with English investors to establish a new colony in North America."

from this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrim_(Plymouth_Colony)

That was more important to them than their physical environment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top