Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-4041-

Why did Americans steal land?

Name: Anonymous 2005-04-16 9:04

Why did Americans steal land from the natives?
Please teach!

Name: Anonymous 2005-04-16 9:41

It wasn't the Americans who did it. The Europeans have had a very war-torn history. There were many many countries placed relatively close together, and the techniques of war had been honed over the course of a thousand years. Therefore when the American continent was discovered, they rushed to see who could claim it first. After all it would be a huge advantage -- think of it like playing Starcraft, and coming upon an empty place to put a base. You would want to make your own base there before anyone else did.

However the Europeans went there and saw that there was already a population of people living in this area. The thing is, many of these people didn't have the level of technology that the Europeans did. As a result the Europeans were able to kill off a large amount of the people.

To those civilizations that did have a level of technology, or a population large enough to pose a threat even without technology (omg zerg rush), the Europeans ended up spreading diseases that the American Indians did not have any defenses for.

Therefore once all the Indians were gone the Europeans were able to set up their warbases. Some people in the land then decided to form their own country and go to war against everyone else who was on the continent and so they ended up owning it. Also they decided to buy some other parts of land from other countries.

Name: Anonymous 2005-04-16 10:33

>>2
Uh....

No. The Europeans while very very good Indian killers they were did not get rid of *all* the Indians (though they really have disease to thank for that, as you correctly said). America has practiced its own genocide/supression of the Indians. Who do you think Custer and Buffalo Soldiers and all those fun calvary dudes were fighting? Ever heard of the "Trail of Tears?" After the Civil War and Mexican American war, we basically entered into a series of Indian Wars against various Indian Nations. We basically stomped over two other (other meaning non-white) races of people to get this land, and exploited all the rest to acheive our modern supremacy.

As for >>1's question on why, we did it because it was necessary to grow as a country. That's it. It's the same reason we're in Iraq, the same reason we've propped up various puppet dictators, the same reason we started the Mexican-American War AND the Spanish-American War. Pure realpolitik. We convinced ourselves that we deserved the entirety of the North American continent for not much more reason than "It's our destiny." And we weren't going to let anyone stand in our way. And truthfully, we were not going to be the powerhouse we are if we didn't.

Name: Anonymous 2005-04-16 13:29

>>3

Though one should note that Americans are culturally European

Name: Anonymous 2005-04-16 19:59

>>4

Yeah, fuck those Niggers.

Name: Anonymous 2005-04-18 13:03

>>4
You think so?  I tend to believe Frederick Jackson Turner's Frontier Thesis as far as what America is as a culture.  Building cities westward, building cities upward, etc is more influential to our "national character" than oldworld ties.

Name: Anonymous 2005-04-18 13:28

>>6
building cities is something europeans never did? these people changed completely on their little boat ride? wtf

Name: Anonymous 2005-04-19 21:29

>>7
#6 is right. American culture is based on European culture, true, but it's evolved into its own Lovecraftian monster. Compare, say, the church going rates, the politics, the art produced, etc. If you consider American culture to be European, then you must consider Australian culture to be European, for which I suggest, you may be correct, but are looking at this from too far out a level.

Name: Anonymous 2005-04-20 18:56

#1. Everybody wants to rule the world.
#2. See #1.

Name: Anonymous 2005-04-21 18:52

#1 Nobody stole anything because nobody owns land anyway.
Laws supposing the ownership are only worth something as long as there is someone to enforce them.

The natives had no more right to the land than the Ainu had to Nippon, or the Romans to Gaul.

Even then, the natives were always migratory and never settled in one place for long. They considered ownership an absurd concept

Name: Anonymous 2005-04-23 18:16

>>10
Prick.

Name: Anonymous 2005-04-23 22:22

>>11
your argument is most considered and convincing, Anonymous-san! Why, with such witty repartee there is surely no need for political discussion anymore!

I humbly request a threadstop, Shii-san, for we have surely found a winner!

Name: Anonymous 2005-04-24 23:36

>>10
You don't think that the various tribes didn't have their own laws regarding land use do you? They may have been migratory (which they all weren't), and generally against land ownership (which they all weren't), but I can assure you that someone had to make sure the Makera tribe stayed the fuck way from the Timapi's river. There may not have been a fucking Indian Unified Code (Though the Cherokee had a constitution, didn't they?), but there was land "laws."

Name: Anonymous 2005-04-25 20:11

>>1
The best way I can explain is this:

America saw themselves as superior, and NAtives are dogs and savages.

They saw the land as going to waste and wanted it for themselves, so they took it they only way they could. They killed the people, or put them on reservations.

It's the same tactic that Hitler used in WW2 to dispose of jewish.

Name: Anonymous 2005-04-25 22:56

LOL AMERICANS ARE SUPERIOR.

Name: Anonymous 2005-04-27 12:25

>>14

That is an extraordinarily simplistic and ignorant explanation, and completely forgets the real questions: what was it that led to these attitudes? What possible benefits does such an ideology afford?

It's called colonism - you can't afford to have another pre-existing culture around when you are trying to both expand and preserve your own.
Moreover the US could not afford a powerful secondary nation within its borders.
Hence the "management" of the "indian problem".

It should be noted the methodology and reasoning behind the eradication of the indian nations has nothing in common with the european-jewish holocaust. In the latter case, it was for political acumen and reappropriation of wealth by the state. Allowing the german people to unleash the angers and frustrations (that arose as a result of the postwar economic fucktitude) upon a single group - along with the requisite party-led propaganda - was a perfect way of militarising the nation. Total war, indeed.

On the whole people commit themselves to the most advantageous ideology.

Name: Anonymous 2005-04-27 12:43

16 ctd.

Given that such a war upon the natives was inevitable, the only question left to answer is: why did people leave europe for the Americas at all?

Everyone has their own reasons for leaving their own country to start over again, but the main ones were:
A) Escaping persecution (pilgrims were too crazy and fundamentalist for their own countries lol, also criminals)
B) Economic opportunities (Lots of land for farming; corn and sugar, and various other natural resources)

The Main thing is, the land was there to be claimed (regardless of whatever alien people said it was theirs). Someone was going to exploit it to improve their own life eventually.

Ok, now America: stop pretending to be sorry for something you never did yourself! Nobody made the land therefore nobody truly deserves it! It's in human nature to do these things!

Name: Anonymous 2005-04-28 0:06

Soon America will have another civil war.

Name: Anonymous 2005-04-29 1:52

>>16
>>17
Hello brainwashed american.
>>It's called colonism - you can't afford to have another pre-existing culture around when you are trying to both expand and preserve your own.
Really? Perserving your own land is nice, but what gives you the right to expand into the land of another nation by force for no reason? What threat do they pose? They were eager at first to trade and learn from the Europeans, there was far less agressiveness ont heir part then the colonials. The colonials all wanted land, so they took it, that's the brass tacks of it.
>>Moreover the US could not afford a powerful secondary nation within its borders.
Hence the "management" of the "indian problem".
Powerful? The indians posed no threat to the colonies at all, 80% of the tribes were peaceful and were more interested in trade and exchange of ideas then war. Even the Pawnee, the most vicious of the tribes, first approached the colonials with the idea of learning about these strangers, it wasn't until their first greeting party was slaughtered that they did what any logical people would do, defend themselves.

>>Allowing the german people to unleash the angers and frustrations (that arose as a result of the postwar economic fucktitude)
the young america had shit-assed economy after the revolutionary war, and america was more than happy to vent on the natives. The method that hitler used to try and exterminate the jews was modeled after America's own brand of genocide against the natives.
>> Given that such a war upon the natives was inevitable
such a war inevitable? since when? that's liek saying a war with canada is inevitable simply because they share the same landmass with us! you're so DQN my head spins.

>>The Main thing is, the land was there to be claimed (regardless of whatever alien people said it was theirs). Someone was going to exploit it to improve their own life eventually.
THERE TO BE CLAIMED? Alien people??? The american natives were there hundreds of years before the colonials, dipshit! They cultivated the land and made it what it was, their blood sweat and tears did that, I think they deserve some claim to it after all that work.

>>Ok, now America: stop pretending to be sorry for something you never did yourself! Nobody made the land therefore nobody truly deserves it! It's in human nature to do these things!
This is the most half-assed cheap cop-out I've ever seen. You make americans look bad by enforcing a steriotype that americans are stupid, ignorant, never take responsibility for their actions, and will do anything to further their own ends.

Name: Anonymous 2005-04-30 9:41

>>19
Groups of human beings, whether nations or tiny tribes, behave like single-celled animals.  Stimulus, response.  Engulf and devour, or die.

It is so fundamental to the human condition that only since the Second World war that more than a tiny number of people have even noticed and objected.  The soft-hearted sentimentality of Westerners will be our downfall.

The proper response to the question that started this thread is something along the lines of "because we could, do you have a problem with that?" or "why not?" or "mu."

Name: Anonymous 2005-05-01 20:12

Like >>20, its just that because America could. I mean I find it REALLY hard to imagine that the US Goverment of that time would had just sat back and said "Oh its indian territory, guess this is where our border stops".

Name: Anonymous 2005-05-02 15:19

>>21
They could've always said
"Hey, native folk, we're going to build a great nation here, and you're welcome to be a part of it, in exchange for your knowledge of the land and animals, and possible mineral deposits, you can take advantage of our advanced technology and ability to mass produce food and make your life generally easier."

And I know there were natives who were perfectly ok with the idea of a meshing of cultures, look at the Sequoia. They tried really hard to mesh with the american culture and become a part of it.

Name: Anonymous 2005-05-04 2:49

>>20
exactly, it's the only answer.

>>Hello brainwashed american.
Hahahaha. No.

>> The colonials all wanted land, so they took it, that's the brass tacks of it.

I won't disagree there.

>> waah waah waah rights

Might makes Right. Even the rights enshrined in whatever law are only enforced, ultimately, with force (police or army).

>> such a war inevitable? since when? that's liek saying a war with canada is inevitable simply because they share the same landmass with us! you're so DQN my head spins.

Actually america has gone to war with canada, just as it has gone to war with mexico. Now who is DQN, ignoramus?
In the case of colonists vs the natives it was inevitable because the colonists wanted control of all the land.

>> waah waah waah birthright inheritance cultivation
the soil was extremely uncultivated - the (relatively) small, moving population simply didn't require agriculture on such a scale. So there goes your 'maek teh land good theory'.

You have a very strange notion of inheritance, and are confusing   the descendents of either group with the ancestors who took land or had it taken from them. The people of today are not the people of yesterday.

Maybe if you were to use even more exclamation points and repeated, indignantly spluttered question marks I might be convinced.

>> This is the most half-assed cheap cop-out I've ever seen. You make americans look bad by enforcing a steriotype that americans are stupid, ignorant, never take responsibility for their actions, and will do anything to further their own ends.

Sorry, I hadn't realised that was your job.

Name: Anonymous 2005-05-04 4:04

>>23
Took you a few days to think all that up, huh?

Name: Anonymous 2005-05-05 0:46

this thread is laffo

Name: Anonymous 2005-05-05 2:09

>>24

No, I responded as soon as I read it.
I don't spend every day on world4ch unlike some faggots

Name: Anonymous 2005-05-05 2:11

2 hours between >>23 and >>24, lol

Name: Anonymous 2005-05-05 2:44

everybody fights everybody. the winners get the land. fucking simple.

Name: Anonymous 2005-05-05 12:04 (sage)

>>25

I created it as a world2ch parody thread, exact same words used, too.

I also created http://www.world4ch.org/read/newpol/1104326422/ and http://www.world4ch.org/read/newpol/1104773293/

Name: Anonymous 2005-05-06 16:56

>>29

I wish I had known of world2ch while it was still up... I tried to get to it a year and a few months ago but it was gone orz

Oh well, from everything I heard, the guy running it had by that time fucked with it so much that it was bound to die a slow, hilarious death (you see what I did there)

Name: Anonymous 2005-05-08 15:40

Stealing land was the normal way of things. Not stealing is new and barely tested.

Name: Anonymous 2005-05-08 20:48

>>31
America used to be smarter than they are now. They used to land in between that. Hint: Louisiana.

Name: Anonymous 2005-05-10 6:25

Stealing Land: Old and Busted
(Re)Installing Puppet Dictators: New hotness

Name: Anonymous 2005-05-10 8:09

Puppet dictators are also old, old, old. Please read History.

Name: Anonymous 2005-05-10 13:27

35GET

Name: Anonymous 2005-05-11 15:48 (sage)

Name: Anonymous 2005-06-11 14:47

This is a stupid argument.  It's stupid to try to justify the past, to try to say that it wasn't that abhorrent, or that is wasn't "America" who did it.  It's also stupid to try and say that America is a bad country, or that somehow the current generation should feel bad about it.  That's just asenine.  "Accidents of birth," anyone? 

The fact is this has been happening since the beginning of time, and denying it or trying to hold someone accountable is only going to make it continue.

And comparing the slaughter of the Native Americans to the invasion of Iraq is also asenine.

Name: Jim Crow 2005-06-20 7:19

America is like social darwinism go terribly wrong. All the outcasts, rejects, bums, inmates, rapers, cultists, punks, goths, etc. from Europe got sent/banned to America, just to own this planet centuries later.

Name: Anonymous 2005-07-06 17:52

Like all nations who steal land, we did it because we could.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-07 17:09

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-07 19:01

>>1
They weren't libertarians.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-07 20:07

>>38
You're thinking of Australia.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-07 21:09

>>1
Natives had been having their nomadic fun(or maybe their true civilization was destroyed long ago?) for way too long and got their arses kicked by organized warriors of west who were way ahead of them in technology. World is not fair and nature is harsh. Only the strongest, wisest and most ruthless survive.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-08 1:56

White people were the dominent species in that region at the time.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-08 3:31

This is nothing new. The majority of nations on this planet have done it or were created by the result of it. Welcome to life, get use to it.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-11 16:47

why do people do things

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-13 23:26

>>46
why do people ask why do people do things?

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-13 23:58

why do people ask why do people why do people ask why do people..
OH SHI- TIME PARADOX

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-14 0:06

Its human nature to want more,acutally, its animal nature to want more,land is something,and humans want more of it.

Name: Xel 2006-08-14 3:40

>>49
 I'm not assuming that you condone everything humans do because it is natural, but couldn't I, universalizing the same principle used sometimes to defend the annexation of Indian territory, steal land and property from an incumbent who doesn't apply to my barometer of development and who doesn't use all the potential of his land? Not inferring from your post, here, just querying.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-30 11:32

bump

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-30 19:20

>>1
uhm, cuz that's what people do.  damn that's a stupid fucking question.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-30 21:05

The gringos stole land because the fucking muds deserved it. Because the muds are inferior and resentful.

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List