If USA & Canada gave the land back to the Indians-

[Eddo36]

Which country or countries will take the people in? A hypothetical scenario. Was wondering who else in the world would take the American and Canadian citizens in asylum. Given the diverse culture of those 2 countries, I'm sure it would have quite an impact on the host country. Say the UK will have some scruffle with 2nd Amendment activists. China will do a major crack down on 1st Amendment activists. Any others you can think of?

[metadigital]

Other:

 

I am sure the Native Americans would be pleased to rent /sell back some or even all the land, for a fair price.

[Atreides]

Yeah, like who'd go to their casinos then?

[metadigital]

People who can't afford to?

[astr0creep]

Other.

 

I would go to the farthest place from where I am on earth: Australia or around there.

[Moose]

I think the real question is would those countries take you. Probably not.

[Blarghagh]

I really don't care, but if they all swarm to Holland, I'm going to stab them all. With rusty nails.

[astr0creep]

I think the real question is would those countries take you. Probably not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah you are right. Nobody wants me.

 

[Hurlshort]

Well, Australia is actually a decent idea, because they have plenty of land for expansion. Other than that, I can't think of many areas with a ton of usable land. Russia is pretty dang cold too.

[Dark_Raven]

Ireland or Germany, back to where my bloodlines came from.

[SteveThaiBinh]

I could probably fit two in the spare room and one on the sofa.

[Oerwinde]

The way I see it, its not our fault if they sold their land for alcohol and beads 150 years ago, so why should we give it back because their ancestors were stupid?

[astr0creep]

The way I see it, its not our fault if they sold their land for alcohol and beads 150 years ago, so why should we give it back because their ancestors were stupid?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

For the same reason Blacks are still saying Whites are racist bigots and slavers?

 

Kidding... "

[Atreides]

I just can't help chuckling at how the Natives might have protested the colonisers signing their songs in English/Spanish/French instead of the local lingo and the settlers having parades like the May 1 one.

[metadigital]

Well, Australia is actually a decent idea, because they have plenty of land for expansion.  Other than that, I can't think of many areas with a ton of usable land.  Russia is pretty dang cold too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Too bad it's mostly desert and devoid of water.

[astr0creep]

New-Zealand for the win!

[Archmonarch]

First of all, it would never happen. Second, being that it is a hypothetical, I think the best they could do is that all immigrants get sent home, but those who were born here (US or Canada) get to stay. And if the Natives complain that except for the invasion several hundred years ago, you wouldn't have been born here, you respond that the same is true of them for the migration from Asia a few thousand years ago. Their prior claim does not negate the right of people to live where they were born.

[Surreptishus]

The question should be rephrased:

 

If you had to live soemwhere other than the USA, where would you go?

[Hekate]

i can't believe i am reading some of the things posted here. Use the term Native peoples, First Nations, indigenous peoples, but as a rule,"Indians" are from India.

 

I think the real question is would those countries take you. Probably not.

i think that is an excellent point. It isn't as if other countries will welcome disenfranchised Canadians and Americans with open arms, especially not in such vast numbers, nor given the current global political climate. And let's face it, through the US's policy of intervention, their refusing to 'play nice' with the U.N., and with all the other rogue nation actions they have taken, i hardly think U.S. citizens will be allowed into most autonomous countries. Not that individual people should be entirely blamed for their government's actions; however; with the U.S. being a type of democracy, technically the citizens chose their representatives in government. i honestly can't see any country accepting either citizens in large quantities.

 

 

I could probably fit two in the spare room and one on the sofa.

Hey, thanks. That's sweet of you :D

 

The way I see it, its not our fault if they sold their land for alcohol and beads 150 years ago, so why should we give it back because their ancestors were stupid?

i assume you did not learn Canadian historty in school in order for you to have made such a statement. Never did any of the First Nations ever sell their land for alcohol and/or beads. Going back to the days of the Royal Proclomation, the official policy was "live and let live" because at the time, it was convenient for the British government to do so. It depended on the military strength of their Native allies. Later, once the British government felt indigenous peoples no longer served much use as military allies nor as mentors in sharing their knowledge of the wildlife and resources, then that policy changed to one of disenfranchisement. In other words, once the British used up as much of the Native Peoples resource they could, then they began persecuting Native peoples and stripping them of their rights. This is not a situation wherein there was equality and a fair negotiation for land rights. This is a complete and utter decimation of entire peoples carried out by a foreign government. Imagine, if you will, a foreign army rolls into your country, takes over, uses it's supperior military strength to kill many of your people as well as introduce foreign illnesses that kill off millions, then they say they are taking your land, displacing your family onto reservations which are in squalid and unhealthy conditions, are making your religion and culture illegal and do not allow you to speak in your own language, force their own religion on you and your people, and force your children to go to residential schools where they are abused and many die. Those are very difficult and disturbing things to even think about, yet that is both of our nations' bloody history. It is true treaties over land rights were signed; however; the British then later Canadian and American governments did not do so in good faith and violated their own treaty laws. To imply Native Peoples were nothing other than "stupid alcholoic bead loving" fools who sold their land and lives away is not only wrong, it is ignorant and offensive.

 

Perhaps people should do some research and thinking before they make statements that are inacurate and discriminatory.

[kumquatq3]

The only reason we would give it back is so we can take it back again.

[Visas Marr is hot]

any american who can beat a typical irish farmer in a drinking contest is welcome in ireland. oh and any american who learns HOW to pronounce europe and ireland. please america learn how to speak english

[Nick_i_am]

I wonder how many of you even know the 'technical term' for native americans.

Edited May 3, 2006 by Nick_i_am

[Llyranor]

lol lol indians

[astr0creep]

I wonder how many of you even know the 'technical term' for native americans.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Huh...

 

 

Drunks?

[Hurlshort]

I've done a few reports on American Indian tribes and spoken to a few Hisorians about the official "term" to use. There is no general concensus, but most groups are comfortable with American Indian. Native American is way too general, since all people born here can be considered native. So if you want to be accurate, use American Indian.

 

Edit: Most people would rather be identified by thier specific tribe.

Edited May 3, 2006 by Hurlshot