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

[roshan]

America got independence before the British colonized India.

[~Di]

America got independence before the British colonized India.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Perhaps it is semantics with the word "colonization". It's my understanding that Britain began it's move on India in the 1600's with the creation of the East Indian Trading Company. By 1765, before America's revolutionary war, Britain had solidified its economic and political hold on India, and began its trek into colonizing Canada during the same basic timeframe. There was a bit of a scuffle in 1847 or thereabouts, but Britain continued to hold onto its power inside India until the mid-1900's.

 

Even if I'm mistaken about precise dates, the crux of my initial post remains the same.

[Azarkon]

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

 

Indeed. And that's actually a good argument for why so-called "rogue" states (or any state that is not part of the American nuclear umbrella) feel compelled to develop advanced weapons capabilities. Our ex-Secretary of Defense once asked the question - why should countries like China expand their military capabilities, when no one threatens them? His implication, of course, is that those countries are developing their arms because they intend to threaten others. But the real answer is that every country is a threat to every other, and so long as there exists an imbalance of military power wherein one people has the ability to wipe out another without them having the ability to do the same, there will always be a push for more and bigger weapons.

 

It's the basic instinct of survival.

[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.

<{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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't really have anything to add. Note that I never spoke a word of Englishmen or any American people. I reiterate: 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. I'm essentially talking about both North and South America, and the people ending up on the wrong end of said demographic change were the natives.

 

I really can't think of anything similar in the history of mankind; the only thing that would come close would be the forced immigration of Africans turned slaves, but that merely served to drain an already badly underpolutaed area further without any intent of keeping the territory for colonizing purposes. Sure, one shouldn't specifically "pick on North America," but the truth of the matter is that the point at hand is very much valid when it comes to the white man versus the natives in the New World on a larger scale than "the Yanks weren't as bad as some other people around the world."

Edited December 4, 2006 by Checkpoint

[Eddo36]

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because that's who occupies it now?

[~Di]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because that's who occupies it now?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So people who live in the USA today are responsible for what Brits, Spainards, French and Porteguese did 300+ years ago? Hmm. Interesting concept. Guess that means those lousy Canadians should also be subjected to criticism and contempt, since they are responsible for what the Brits and the French did to the native populatioin up there. And blame the Mexicans for what the Spanish and Porteguese to the Mayans, Aztecs, and other native cultures.

 

That's the ticket. Each person on the planet is responsible for every bad thing done by humans to humans in the history of mankind. Sounds about right.

Edited December 4, 2006 by ~Di

[Eddo36]

But US is still doing it by being there....

[Deraldin]

But US is still doing it by being there.... 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

*looks at location*

 

So what's your excuse?

Edited December 4, 2006 by Deraldin

[~Di]

... Sure, one shouldn't specifically "pick on North America," but the truth of the matter is that the point at hand is very much valid when it comes to the white man versus the natives in the New World on a larger scale than "the Yanks weren't as bad as some other people around the world."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not trying to be difficult here, but I honestly do not understand what that means. There weren't any such thing as "Yanks" when the wholesale slaughter of natives on the portion of the continent now known as the USA (and Canada as well, for that matter) began. That slaughter was instigated by the French and the Brits, primarily, and continued on for a couple of centuries before there was such a thing as an "American."

 

And the Spanish managed to wipe out two of the grandest civilizations of its time, the Aztecs and the Mayans, then conquered a slab of land nearly the size of the USA in total. That's a fairly large scale, I'd say.

 

So what point, exactly, is the one you consider to be valid, while ignoring the identical atrocities which led to the establishment of both our neighbors to the north and to the south? Discussions like this one always leave me perplexed, because they seem to be a perversion of the past in an attempt to perpetrate bigotries of the present. Besides which, it makes no freaking sense.

[Checkpoint]

But US is still doing it by being there.... 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

*looks at location*

 

So what's your excuse?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nah, he was just standing there...

Edited December 4, 2006 by Checkpoint

[~Di]

But US is still doing it by being there.... 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

... and the Canadians and Mexicans are not still occupying their ill-gotten plots of land?

 

Either I'm totally missing your point, or I'd like to share what you are smoking. (w00t)

[Eddo36]

But US is still doing it by being there.... 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

... and the Canadians and Mexicans are not still occupying their ill-gotten plots of land?

 

Either I'm totally missing your point, or I'd like to share what you are smoking. (w00t)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Either that or you didn't read the title of the topic before you start using personal insults.

[~Di]

But US is still doing it by being there.... 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

... and the Canadians and Mexicans are not still occupying their ill-gotten plots of land?

 

Either I'm totally missing your point, or I'd like to share what you are smoking. (w00t)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Either that or you didn't read the title of the topic before you start using personal insults.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There was nothing that could remotely be construed as a personal insult in that. I'll bow out of the discussion at this point.

[Eddo36]

Goodbye, and I would like some of what you're on as well. Either that or learn to read topics before you post in them.

[Checkpoint]

... Sure, one shouldn't specifically "pick on North America," but the truth of the matter is that the point at hand is very much valid when it comes to the white man versus the natives in the New World on a larger scale than "the Yanks weren't as bad as some other people around the world."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not trying to be difficult here, but I honestly do not understand what that means. There weren't any such thing as "Yanks" when the wholesale slaughter of natives on the portion of the continent now known as the USA (and Canada as well, for that matter) began. That slaughter was instigated by the French and the Brits, primarily, and continued on for a couple of centuries before there was such a thing as an "American."

 

And the Spanish managed to wipe out two of the grandest civilizations of its time, the Aztecs and the Mayans, then conquered a slab of land nearly the size of the USA in total. That's a fairly large scale, I'd say.

 

So what point, exactly, is the one you consider to be valid, while ignoring the identical atrocities which led to the establishment of both our neighbors to the north and to the south? Discussions like this one always leave me perplexed, because they seem to be a perversion of the past in an attempt to perpetrate bigotries of the present. Besides which, it makes no freaking sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can understand that you're perplexed, because you obviously haven't grasped a word of what I was saying.

 

In chronological order:

 

1. The use of terms like "Yanks" is slightly beside the point which, ironically, is one of my points.

 

2. You do, however, realise that "Yanks" of today are the decendants of those naughty-nasty Limeys and Frenchies, right?

 

3. I ALREADY SAID THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA SO WHY THE HELL DO YOU BRING UP THE SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE AGAIN, G'FZAAAAH...?

 

4. I'm calm.

 

5. The point that is valid is the one suggesting that "no, there aren't all that many comparable examples where 'the original inhabitants of [any country] all are either long-gone or find themselves sharing with the descendants of conquerors' and if that shatters your world I weep for you." I don't really weep for you.

 

6. I wasn't making a point of today's North Americans being responsible for the demographic persecution of Native Americans hundreds of years ago, but rather the point of your inherently flawed grasp of historic events on a wider demographic level.

 

7. I'm just agitated. Really agitated.

[alanschu]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because that's who occupies it now?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So people who live in the USA today are responsible for what Brits, Spainards, French and Porteguese did 300+ years ago? Hmm. Interesting concept. Guess that means those lousy Canadians should also be subjected to criticism and contempt, since they are responsible for what the Brits and the French did to the native populatioin up there. And blame the Mexicans for what the Spanish and Porteguese to the Mayans, Aztecs, and other native cultures.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Those lousy Canadians are subjected to criticism and contempt.

[thepixiesrock]

Wait, did I miss something (And if I did could someone show me) but did anyone even single out the USA?

[Jorian Drake]

Wait, did I miss something (And if I did could someone show me) but did anyone even single out the USA?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bin Laden?

[Craigboy2]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well for one most pure blood indians are gone and two, nothing prevents them for running for government(and there are some in the gov.).

[thepixiesrock]

Wait, did I miss something (And if I did could someone show me) but did anyone even single out the USA?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bin Laden?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If that was serious then I would suggest that you actually read a thread before posting in it.

[Jorian Drake]

Wait, did I miss something (And if I did could someone show me) but did anyone even single out the USA?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bin Laden?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If that was serious then I would suggest that you actually read a thread before posting in it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

from now on i put jk under some of my comments, you should do the same with all of yours <_<

[thepixiesrock]

Oh, I don't make jokes.

[Jorian Drake]

Oh, I don't make sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[thepixiesrock]

I hope you enhjoy being reported. Harrasment is against forum rules.

[Gromnir]

"Legally, Indian reservations are each sovereign nations, governed by the tribes themselves"

 

well, no. we wish that were true, but technically the US has created a legal fiction that is slightly different from what Di s'poses is reality. domestic dependent nation status. if you ever figure out what that really means, give us a call. changes from decade to decade, but it clearly not rise to Soverign Nation status. furthermore, the US has a pretty well documented history of breaking treaties with Indian Tribes.

 

even then, there is far more Indian Tribes than there is Recognized Indian Tribes, which can result in some considerable confusion. in your neck of the woods you may have heard that a tribe in Jackson, CA were causing a rukus, and part of problem were simply fact that regardless of fact that group in Jackson were clearly all natives peoples who had clear and documented tribal ties to a given geographical location gong back hundreds of years, the US had never quite gotten around to recognizing the tribe in question.

 

that being said, the nonsense that indigenous peoples got some special right to land is, well, nonsense. Gromnir's people would have quite happily exterminated the Crow if we had ever been able to manage it. also, how one determines who were the true indigenous peoples is often gonna be difficult to figure out anyways. those peaceful natives had wars and their "boarders" changed a great deal over time. how you determine which indigenous peoples gots the superior right? not wanna pi$$ off the fundamentalist Christians, but if we all did evolve from apes in Africa, then most indigenous peoples 'round the globe started out someplace else, no?

 

in any event, it would be naive and stoopid to suggest that power politics model ain't what determines who gets to establish rights. once you secure boarders and creates a monopoly on force w/i those boarders, then you can makes up whatever rules you wants to for govering those w/i controlled territory, and you gots practical legitimacy... just so long as you can prevent somebody else from wresting control from you.

 

justice and morality is secondary concerns that merit consideration only after power politics is given its due.

 

HA! Good Fun!