American Indians

Should America give land/welfare/other reparations towards native American Indians? Why or why not? We did genocide them for their land

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crow_Creek_massacre
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Indians are not humans

whats done is done. They felt their land was worth a few muskets and some shiny beads so fuck it. They were horrible negotiators and pretty damn stupid.

We already give them money, scholarships, college funds. An indian can literally live their entire lives without working and getting drunk all the time.

So, no.

No, you fought wars with each others and they lost.
If they want reparations they have to start another war and win it (which wont happen).

There is no sacred ground for the conquered

shiny fucking beads you cuck

They've been on the government teat for so long now it's kind of crippled them. Although some of the ones that get off the rez develop a decent work ethic, they're definitely the exception.
Of course that just makes the white man more responsible.
Fuck.

We also gave them internet, polio vaccine, priceless scientific and medical breakthroughs. Defended them with our lives in how many wars? (regardless of who started it, we defended them unconditionally)

There's no concrete solution to undo everything in the past. We call it "quits" and give their land back -- and? Does that fix the unfuckable blight on their people's history? No. Despite what you might think, native Americans can and are very patriotic in the USA.

Yeah you did. But nobody told them to pretend to be Indians.

>their land

Look who fell for the memes taught in school

ameriturds should all an hero

>almost extincting an animal just to starve to death the people you scammed, pic related

>yeah dude just encage them and put our clothes on them, that way they won't cry for their lost sovereignity, pic related

you're a very smart american
when did you quit school?

>35 people fighting against 300 soldiers.
>rather than submitting to the retarded inbreds whom were killinkg your people, last 3 charge the 300 with anything but two kinves and a discharged gun.

>urr durr we mass bomb places and drop bombs on civilians, we heros dude
pic related

>They felt their land was worth a few muskets and some shiny beads so fuck it. They were horrible negotiators and pretty damn stupid.

nice propaganda you mulitated inbred retard.
ameriturds kept writing false treaties that were always diregarded as they pleased.

They kept on tricking indians, 0/10 shilling you disgusting lard ball kike slave, do an hero

a million times no

repirations do not solve any problems

it just gets aboriginals addicted to social assistance

>lol, so touristy, yup, here's were we massacred defensless indians, we rock buddy! pic related

It's very sad indeed what americucks did, it's sadder how a lot of americans think about it without knowing anything about it
But there's nothing that can be done now

>"yeah, they're just quasi-animal savages, I mean, it's not like they have adobe-made cities or advanced agriculture, they're just a bunch of savages living in tents" pic related

Were you the guy asking about native gibsmedats in the other thread.

Just so you know you have to be 1/6th native which means your grandma or grandpa has to be full blood.

Also if you are a yankee native you can't claim benefits here because it goes by treaties and it's the tribe that pays you.

t. guy who married a chug

Italy talking about subjugating/invading any sort of race is hilarious. At least we did it instead of getting btfo in the First Italo-Ethiopian War

>Getting tricked
>Valid excuse

Hey Italy, tell us the story about the last time you had a stable government

No written language, no wheel, our land now.

that has nothing to do with this thread cunt, trying to feel better about yourself? mommy and daddy didn't pay enough attention to you today
go trump

agree

Actually, the natives were the main cause of the "almost extincting" because they (relatively recently) got horses from the Europeans. And surprise, surprise, the Indians didn't have some magical harmonious connection with the land that made their hunting (which was 100x easier because horses) sustainable.

...

we already gave them reparations and they've done nothing with them besides get drunk and suicide. literally the biggest pieces of shit in the world.

It's not their land, they didn't develop on it they just made shacks and lived there. The settlers had full right to develop on it and claim it as their own. Genocide was pretty sketchy but who gives a shit anymore, it's 2016. The time has passed for reparations.

...

No, conquest is and always will be apart of human life and culture. we would be nowhere near as powerful of a country hadn't we done it.

If the Native Americans where superior to the Europeans, they might have been able to build ships, sail to Europe, conquer and rule their land and spread their culture. But instead they lived in Teepees hunting buffalo.

If you are offended over conquest, you're either a women or a giant pussy.

get your facts straights instead of shitposting

haven't you heard of Buffalo Bill? don't you know the government actually offered rewards just because of that, aka starving to death indians not willing to be encaged in concentration camps by exterminating indian's main source of food, shelter and shit aka buffalos? you are shilling, fuck off

>We did genocide them for their land
Why do people believe this?
First of all, they were violent monsters who were at constant war with rival tribes. One of the reasons they were considered savages and were treated so harshly, was because they specifically went after women and children. They also took slaves.
Large areas of land were also traded away, and most Indians died because of disease, not warfare.

To be perfectly honest, the native tribes were lucky to get any protected land even if it is in the shithole parts of the country. Most lands that get conquered have their native populations wiped off the face of the earth.

It's unsavory how we got our land, but it's no different from the atrocities other countries committed to plant their roots.

We've given them beads and Listerene. That's enough.

>something that among the offsprings of retarded inbred protestants is not to be found: nobilty of features, aristocratic portament, a true noble man forced to understand how could these people could call themselves men after betraying and lieing and cheating, pic related

My point is that the natives were already making it go extinct before the americans came along and did it some more.

test

>genocide
Why are they still complaining then?

MIGHT

>66
Yes, chug-a-thugs have a free ride here.
Gibmedats lotto, but, shit tier genetics.

and it's a bullshit point

>But instead they lived in Teepees hunting buffalo.
do they really teach you that in schools? genuinely curious

It's not.
The Natives had no concept of overhunting and practiced slash and burn agriculture.

>had no concept of overhunting
that doesn't mean they would have been able to estinguish buffalos through bows and arrows.
unless you have any kind of source, fuck off.

also, denying mass extrerminating buffalos was a calculated mean of exterminating indians, that's a fact, how can you be so retarded as to try to blame indians for it? are you a mutilated kike of some sort?

Should they give the land they stole from their own people when they warred and massacred them?

But, of course, they invented scalping just as the Europeans arrived, right? Not like they were trophies or anything...

I am of the opinion that the Native American tribes ought to have more say in how the "public" lands are administered. The original idea for the National Parks was to have Indians living in them, like Canyon de Chelly in the Navajo Nation, which is now beginning to happen in Death Valley N.P., for example. In my area they manage some of the fishing in a National Forest just north of me. In season you can see them with their traditional fishing gear strapped to their modern pickup trucks. I like seeing them there, a reminder of who managed the continent for thousands of years.

The Euro-American idea of the "human-free wilderness" has no basis in reality. The people who invented this idea were part of the second wave of European immigrants, who found a continent teaming with wildlife, overgrown forests, a result of the elimination of the original keystone species and apex predator, the human being. The millennia-old ecological balance was upset in only a few short centuries.

But they weren't perfect. They fought with each other over territory, over-hunted, starved etc. Some tribes made alliances with the Europeans, in order to defeat their enemies, only to get screwed in the end. Pic related, the Crow Creek Massacre, around 1320 AD, well before the Europeans showed up. The hundreds of skeletons show signs of malnutrition and surviving previous battle wounds including being scalped. Fun fact: The scalp of a woman, old man or child was more valuable than that of a warrior, because it was proof of penetrating the enemy village's outer defenses. Some fascinating references at the bottom of this article:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crow_Creek_massacre

>hey invented scalping just as the Europeans arrived, right? Not like they were trophies or anything...
so what? They fought hand to hand, i took skills to kill enemies, it's perfectly understandable to be proud of one's killings.

Then again given your flag maybe you are on of those retarded inbred protestants whom think mass bombing cities and targeting civilians is perfectly reasonable.

do an hero homo

I think you entirely misunderstood what I meant. To expected, I suppose, from a mud people.

>that doesn't mean they would have been able to estinguish buffalos through bows and arrows

You missed my first point entirely. The native Americans got HORSES from the Spanish which completely changed the hunting dynamic they had with the buffalo. Instead of the slow process of trapping and chasing they had to do on foot, they could easily keep up with the buffalo on horseback the buffalo and spear or shoot them to death.

They didn't NEED better weapons to overhunt to the buffalo, they just needed to keep up with them.

Why do you have such a fucking hardon for these primitive halfwits?

>The native Americans got HORSES from the Spanish
I perfectly know that, still I don't see how can you pretend they would have been able to exterminate that.

Inbred protestants started killing buffalos and let them rot in fields just to starve indians, and that's a fact, you are just pushing speculations in order to...what? what is your "if" implying? are you schooled? can you try present your ideas coherently?

No that would make us indian givers.

You seem to have a naive and romantic view of warfare.

In real wars everything goes, not just proud noble one on one hand to hand combat with full consent of the opposing parties. And it's been that way forever.

Why would we ever do such a thing?

Everybody wants to rag on Americans for doing the dirty work, then they feel free to take full advantage of what we created from the savage wilderness while complaining about it all.

If you call what we did genocide, and yet are complacent to reside within our borders, you're a hypocrite

I didn't think smallpox could commit genocide.

>The Euro-American idea of the "human-free wilderness" has no basis in reality.
Except it did. North America is huge, and the Native American population wasn't particularly large, meaning that enormous areas were uninhabited.
There's also the fact that many areas simply weren't habitable, or there were better areas to live.

I mean, look at Norway. There are 5 million of us now, but most of Norway is just wilderness and mountains. The population is mostly found in the cities and small villages, and some spread out houses and cabins.
In North America, which is many many times larger than Norway, there were estimated to live between 2 and 18 million people in North America by the time the Europeans arrived. If we take the middle ground and say there were something like 10 million natives when the Europeans arrived, that would mean that the continent was extremely sparsely populated.

Yes.

You did not,your ancestors did with their ancestors.We dont give handouts to jews and have Nürnberg trials every 2nd weekend of the month.

>240 gorillons

:
Left: Disgusting leathery shitman.
Right: Beautiful cherub with smooth baby soft skin and a heart of pure gold.

240 million natives? There haven't lived that many natives in north America, in total, over the past 1000 years.

>240 gorillion godless subhumans

>240 quadrillion
Damn, this number goes up every year

I feel bad for what happened especially out west and as time went on in the 19th century (they started a lot of the shit in the early settler days in the 1600s) but that does not mean we need to let ourselves get taken over by illegals now as some sort of karma for what our ancestors did. Fuck that the Indians wish that we never fucked them why should we make the same mistake?

Why don't you ask smallpox or polio if they wanna give some welfare or reparations to the Indians. Seeing as they did a majority of the genocide

POO

I feel like listening to Run to the Hills.

cool flag

If they weren't actively killing each other they could have mounted a defense, but they were literally prehistoric savages when we strived

the united states has given them land and the right to self govern on that land. as far as reparations thats the land they were given but i think they had been given some seed money for building cost in the past

Yess.. that's the reason why Ameri-kuns won't accept Armenian g.. mass deportations. (500 billion and counting). Because if they do, native ameri-kuns will knock their doors, asking for more. Same goes with any country, really.
Aboriginal genocide?
Japanese war crimes?
Amerindian genocide by the Spanish?

Don't open the pandora's box. Live on. It's exclusively a Jewish thing.

>aboriginal genocide
>tfw there are more abbos alive right now than there have ever been
I wish, mehmet

I'm not romantic about war, I am just stating that for a warrior who have to kill close range his opponent, taking pride and collecting something proofing that killing is understandable.

I am against considering indians savages because of scalps, that's tumblr-tier bullshit

feelbad.jpg

If you do it won't change a single thing. Natives will still hate whites and they'll still be drunks. Look at Canada

They were savages because they were a primitive people who valued killing civilians more than killing other warriors. They specifically went for the enemy settlements to kill women and children, in order to wipe them out. The ones they didn't kill were enslaved.
It was even common practise to cut scalps while the victims were still alive. There are plenty of examples of white kids who were scalped and left for dead after they were ambushed by indians, but who survived without their scalp.

Injuns sca basically live their life on very easy mode. Add to that tribal courts and sovereign nation status. It's no wonder Pocahontas Warren is bullshitting about her Indian blood. Too bad so many of them are too drunk on hair spray to take advantage of all that good shit.

so what? bombing dresda or hiroshima in your tumblr-mind is somehow less savage?

>Can basically

That's what I get for phone posting I suppose.

Here's how I see it: much like what this guy said it was a war and they lost. True there were atrocities committed during the war but not by anyone alive now and not suffered through by anyone alive now, so why should either side give or get anything now? Should the countries which took areas of land away from Germany after WW2 have to give that back? It's more recent, so why not?

Virtually all current borders are the result of conflicts in the past, saying something like "oh, indians should have this land because it would've been theirs if americans hadn't taken it from them" is like saying "oh we should give back the Mediterranean to italy because it used to be theirs". It's just plain ridiculous.

Also, if you want to argue from a utilitarian point of view, much more good use has come from european colonies taking the land and developing into america than would've come from just letting a bunch of roaming tribes keep control of a vast and plentiful land. Think of all the advancements in technology, medicine, manufacture, leisure, arts etc. that have come from the US, much like it's european parents.

Colonization was horrible. Hordes of Americans burst into our nothing, leaving behind entire cities, universities, parks.

t. Reservationnigger

The British lads point was probably that Injuns have been fucking each other up terribly long before whitey joined the game, so they are not a noble peaceful people who were suddenly subject to the great injustice of the white man.

It's not that they're worse, it's just that they are not innocent.

The white man is not extraordinarily violent or evil either. He's extraordinarily competent. That's why his violence seems worse, he's just better at accomplishing what everyone sets out to do.

> tumblr-mind
Are you completely retarded? You're the one crying like a little bitch over white people conquering a bunch of primitive savages.

>primitive savages.
said by a flag that literally gave the world nothing. are you still living in mud huts?

>It's not that they're worse, it's just that they are not innocent.
They actually were worse. As I've pointed out, they specifically targeted civilians, took scalps from living people and essentially practised genocide. They didn't try to defeat and rule over their enemies. They tries to exterminate them. And these were neighbouring tribes.

The primary reason the Europeans treated the natives so harshly, was exactly because they were retaliating against the indian's extreme brutality and their tendency to target civilians.

>it's just that they are not innocent.
it's not about being innocent but about the way inbred protestants kept on liying Aand cheating with fake treaties. indians perfectly accepteded defeat, what they could not understand was the way the white men disattending treaties the white men themselves wrote.

that's the shame

>They actually were worse.
you don't know what you are talking about dirty kike

rude desu

>heart of pure gold
this is how in the US call people with a heart full of cholesterol?

...

Yeah, we live in mud huts in the world's wealthiest country. Quality banter there, greaseball.

pls

>jesus man I got to go to Norway or I'll an hero asap
said no one ever

Torture and genocide and targeting civilians happens everywhere. Completely exterminating your enemy is just common sense. They're all just part of the package.

Also part of the package. If you can fuck over your enemy by pretending to be friendly and then fucking with him anyway that's an intelligent tactic.

I don't think there's much sense into bringing that type of morality into power struggles. If scalping your enemy alive is sensible to you why isn't breaking your promise when it benefits you?

>why isn't breaking your promise when it benefits you?
because they were called treaties and were redacted after wars, if you support this kind of behviour I don't think there will ever be an agreement

>muh noble savage

might makes right regardless europoors

>jesus man I got to go to Norway or I'll an hero asap
You're absolutely right. It's not like we have an immigration problem or anything, with people from the middle east and Europe flocking to Norway.

Seriously, could you at least put some effort into your retarded insults?