Why does US, Canada, and Mexico own North America?

[Eddo36]

Doesn't the whole continent rightfully belong to the Native Americans?

 

If so, are Native Americans exempt from selective service? Otherwise, it's pretty messed up.

Edited December 3, 2006 by Eddo36

[Wistrik]

As history shows, the right to a body of land belongs to whoever is powerful enough to control it. The native americans were too fragmented from internal bickering and wars between tribes to present a united front against the colonists, and their technology was centuries behind that of the rest of the world, so they lost the land they'd lived on for centuries. Now the right belongs to the countries currently in power: Canada, Mexico and the USA.

 

As to selective service, I've no idea.

[Eddo36]

If that is true, then why did they make it against the law to kick your neighbor out of his house if you are stronger than he is?

Edited December 3, 2006 by Eddo36

[Wistrik]

Because both you and your neighbor are subject to the law of the land. The only way you could do that to your neighbor and get away with it is if you also conquered your government and rewrote the law so you could keep his house.

 

Physical strength is not the same as ruling power. One is personal, the other encompasses many people.

[CoM_Solaufein]

If so, are Native Americans exempt from selective service?

No they are not. They are just like any other American citizen.

[roshan]

What is selective service?

[Arkan]

What is selective service?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Draft.

[~Di]

The USA hasn't had selective service (or the "draft") in decades. Interesting question about Native Americans, though. I honestly don't know the answer. Legally, Indian reservations are each sovereign nations, governed by the tribes themselves. American authorities cannot enter Indian reservations without permission, except when they ignore the law and storm the place (not unlike what they do to other countries that annoy them) to root out hiding criminals or whatnot. But that's really frowned upon.

 

Anyway, you could ask the same question about nearly every country on the planet, since the original inhabitants of them all are either long-gone or find themselves sharing with the descendants of conquerors. Why just pick on North America? :cool:

[kumquatq3]

While off their reservations, Indians are subject to the same laws, both Federal and State, as are other citizens. I'm not sure they can be drafted while on the reservation.

 

Anyway, you could ask the same question about nearly every country on the planet, since the original inhabitants of them all are either long-gone or find themselves sharing with the descendants of conquerors.

 

pretty much

Edited December 3, 2006 by kumquatq3

[Laozi]

Legally, Indian reservations are each sovereign nations, governed by the tribes themselves.  American authorities cannot enter Indian reservations without permission, except when they ignore the law and storm the place (not unlike what they do to other countries that annoy them) to root out hiding criminals or whatnot.  But that's really frowned upon. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hmmm.... Reminds me a bit about that Native American who was somehow involved in a shootout which ended in a couple of dead FBI agents. I believe he's been locked up for about twenty or so yrs. without a trial.

[~Di]

Hmmm.... Reminds me a bit about that Native American who was somehow involved in a shootout which ended in a couple of dead FBI agents. I believe he's been locked up for about twenty or so yrs. without a trial.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Without a trial? Link, please.

 

If you are referring to Leonard Peltier , he most certainly did get a trial. In 1977 he was convicted of killing two FBI agents. As frequently happens with high-profile cases, there is a core of folks who believe that he is innocent, or that even if he's guilty he had a right to kill the agents, or that he's a political prisoner because he was taken into custody on an Indian reservation... but he most certainly had a trial, so you may want to be a bit more prudent with such allegations in the future.

Edited December 3, 2006 by ~Di

[Laozi]

oops :">

 

 

I didn't mean to misrepresent things, I meant 30yrs. without a fair trial.

[~Di]

oops :">

 

 

I didn't mean to misrepresent things, I meant 30yrs. without a fair trial.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Several appelate courts disagree. So do the families of the FBI agents that he killed. Pretty much every prisoner in the country (in most countries, actually) consistently declares himself/herself to be (A) innocent, and (B) wrongly convicted. As for the "Save Leonard" folks... hell, even John Wayne Gacy had a fanclub. *shrug*

Edited December 3, 2006 by ~Di

[Eddo36]

Physical strength is not the same as ruling power. One is personal, the other encompasses many people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why is there a difference between a macro scale and a micro scale?

[Gorth]

[Why is there a difference between a macro scale and a micro scale?

Are you asking this as a serious question?

 

Micro:

Well, if you and your neighbour were the only two people in the world, you might be able to "liberate" his home and kick him out. Assuming that you are physically capable of subjugating him.

 

Micro/Macro:

Since it's unlikely that you are the the only two people in the world (which would make me your neighbour :ph34r: ), other rules apply. Part of being a member of society, be it a gang, a country, a political party etc. is the mutual commitments and rules that governs behaviour, responsibilites and so on. If you are both part of a society that has rules which states, that you can not kick out your neighbour because he is unable to hang on to his property, that society will gang up on you and kick you out in return, giving your neighbour his home back.

 

Macro:

This is where it gets messy and usually pretty bloody, when two organised groups (again, gangs, nations, political parties whatever) decides that they need to kick their neighbours out of their homes (because their homes needs to be "liberated" in the name of all that is right and holy and so on). The principle is the same as in the Micro example, might makes right. Sometimes you have a choice of which part you belong to, sometimes it's an accident of birth whether your are doing the "liberating" or being "liberated".

Edited December 4, 2006 by Gorth

[Krookie]

The United States, Canada, and Mexico are "own" North America because we had bigger and better weapons then the Indians.

[Weiser_Cain]

Native americans are americans.

[Eddo36]

[Why is there a difference between a macro scale and a micro scale?

Are you asking this as a serious question?

 

Micro:

Well, if you and your neighbour were the only two people in the world, you might be able to "liberate" his home and kick him out. Assuming that you are physically capable of subjugating him.

 

Micro/Macro:

Since it's unlikely that you are the the only two people in the world (which would make me your neighbour :ph34r: ), other rules apply. Part of being a member of society, be it a gang, a country, a political party etc. is the mutual commitments and rules that governs behaviour, responsibilites and so on. If you are both part of a society that has rules which states, that you can not kick out your neighbour because he is unable to hang on to his property, that society will gang up on you and kick you out in return, giving your neighbour his home back.

 

Macro:

This is where it gets messy and usually pretty bloody, when two organised groups (again, gangs, nations, political parties whatever) decides that they need to kick their neighbours out of their homes (because their homes needs to be "liberated" in the name of all that is right and holy and so on). The principle is the same as in the Micro example, might makes right. Sometimes you have a choice of which part you belong to, sometimes it's an accident of birth whether your are doing the "liberating" or being "liberated".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And why isn't the world a society by itself?

[kumquatq3]

The United States, Canada, and Mexico are "own" North America because we had bigger and better weapons then the Indians.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

and better bacteria and viruses!

[Gorth]

And why isn't the world a society by itself?

Because nobody has been strong enough to "liberate" all of it yet. Not for lack of trying mind you

 

Alexander tried, the Romans tried, the Mongols tried, the Spanish tried, the English tried, the Americans would love to try etc. Yet none has yet come up with the strength to clean the entire house of it's former inhabitants so to speak and keep them out (to stay with the original allegory of kicking your neighbour out).

 

Somebody is bound to come along every century with the idea that "his" people is the chosen master race and all other races/parties/religions/ideologies are inferior and must be replaced with your own.

 

Who knows, somebody might succeed some day. Evolution in action...

 

 

Edit: In some ways, you could argue that the world is a society by itself, it just has a very high threshold of tolerance for infighting before it's constituent members unify and act against single members.

Edited December 4, 2006 by Gorth

[metadigital]

And why isn't the world a society by itself?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because nobody has been strong enough to "liberate" all of it yet. Not for lack of trying mind you

 

Alexander tried, the Romans tried, the Mongols tried, the Spanish tried, the English tried, the Americans would love to try etc. Yet none has yet come up with the strength to clean the entire house of it's former inhabitants so to speak and keep them out (to stay with the original allegory of kicking your neighbour out).

 

Somebody is bound to come along every century with the idea that "his" people is the chosen master race and all other races/parties/religions/ideologies are inferior and must be replaced with your own.

 

Who knows, somebody might succeed some day. Evolution in action...

 

 

Edit: In some ways, you could argue that the world is a society by itself, it just has a very high threshold of tolerance for infighting before it's constituent members unify and act against single members.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You forgot the Japanese and the Nazis.

[Checkpoint]

Anyway, you could ask the same question about nearly every country on the planet, since the original inhabitants of them all are either long-gone or find themselves sharing with the descendants of conquerors.  Why just pick on North America?  :cool:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because what happened in America happened on a systematically much larger scale with the objective of conquering a vast area through organized means, leading to demographic change of a nature not entirely comparable to a whole lot of other historical examples.

[metadigital]

Blame those pesky European Catholics (Spain and Portugal): it was their persuit of God, Glory and Gold.

[Pidesco]

You mean Gold. The other two were really just excuses.

[~Di]

Anyway, you could ask the same question about nearly every country on the planet, since the original inhabitants of them all are either long-gone or find themselves sharing with the descendants of conquerors.  Why just pick on North America?  :cool:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because what happened in America happened on a systematically much larger scale with the objective of conquering a vast area through organized means, leading to demographic change of a nature not entirely comparable to a whole lot of other historical examples.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As Meta pointed out, plenty of folks to blame. The Spainards managed to wipe out several civilizations in Central America and Mexico, and plop their own genetic profile in its stead. The Porteguese took care of those pesky natives in and around much of South America. The French wiped out most of the natives in Florida and what is now Central-Western USA, along with a healthy dollop of what is now Canada before the blood-thirsty Brits landed and began to wipe out those tribes along the east coast.

 

Of course the Brits were behind France, Spain and Portugal in the North-South American native-slaughtering business because they were stretched a bit thin, having to liberate an entire continent (Australia) from those naughty aboriginal folks, not to mention the effort it took for them to claim one of the most populated countries in Asia (India) as its own. This all happened long before there was any population known as "American", because it was long before there was even a country known as America or the USA.

 

So tell me again, why is North America... specifically the territory now known as the USA... being singled out for criticism and contempt here?