Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

EcluiTuism t1_isjl1ro wrote

Be more uplifting if they got some of their land back tbh

51

turnshavetabled t1_iskg66t wrote

This argument is so nonsensical if you actually understand the history of this continent before Europeans came. Many of the indigenous tribes in North America were constantly at war/odds and would routinely battle to conquer each others land or kill each other’s people. This ridiculous sense of ownership to a specific tribe just because that’s who was there when we conquered them? Those lands changed hands for thousands of years just like in the rest of the world with warring factions

6

zoinkability t1_islaj37 wrote

By this logic a bunch of aliens from another planet would be justified to come in, genocide 90% of all humans, take 99% of the earth’s landmass, and justify it by pointing out that we fought each other before they arrived. Indigenous nations do not need to have been some hippy pacifist ideal in order to have any right to say that what European colonizers did was wrong.

15

turnshavetabled t1_islum3t wrote

You can not like it all you want but I was just arguing against having to give those lands back. That’s ridiculous

−2

MrOpelepo t1_islq32t wrote

Yes that is sound logic, and the "logic" of nature. If aliens can wipe us out they have every right to the land since we couldn't keep it. Just because it makes you feel bad doesn't make it untrue.

−5

zoinkability t1_islta56 wrote

Might makes right!

Seriously, if that is your argument, just make it. The commenter above isn’t making that argument though. They are making the argument that the fact that indigenous nations fought with each other excuses the fact of colonialism.

4

MrOpelepo t1_islticj wrote

So it is, so it's always been. At least in nature, which we are apart of - might does make right.

I don't really see where they excuse colonialism, only that that they disagree the land colonialists conquered should be given back to the last tribe that conquered that land before colonists arrived.

−6

zoinkability t1_ism0k7c wrote

There is a major difference between human societies and nature, namely that we have morals and ethics. If you truly believe that might makes right as a fundamental principle, you basically have to throw out most of morality and ethics. You have to believe that slavery was OK, the holocaust was OK, rape and murder are OK, China’s treatment of Uyghur is OK, torture is OK. After all, they are all simply scenarios where someone used their might to do what they wished.

So: does might really make right? Or only when you are on the side of might?

2

MrOpelepo t1_ism3zwy wrote

I'm going to debate your first premise. Humans are of nature, therefore anything humans can, will ever do, or conceive of is of nature, or natural. Might makes right is a saying that means whoever has more force or power will be victorious, it's a statement of fact, not morality. Slavery existed because one group of people had power over another group, that is might makes right, but it does not make it morally correct.

−2

zoinkability t1_ism8czq wrote

OK, ethics and morality are part of nature because humans are a part of nature. I don’t see how that changes anything else about this discussion. Humans still have a sense of right and wrong that does not (as far as we know) exist elsewhere in nature.

In any case you are now getting into semantics. What does “right” even mean if not morally and/or ethically acceptable? If it simply means “what is” then it has no meaning, since nothing that exists can be wrong.

3

1questions t1_isna1xp wrote

Your second sentence is poor logic.

1

MrOpelepo t1_isnvkam wrote

I am willing to confess it is poor grammar. But I am also willing to defend the underlying logic to my death.

1

1questions t1_isn9ym2 wrote

“At least in nature, which we are a part of-might does make right.” Say the person using a cell phone or computer to comment on Reddit. Obviously we aren’t purely living off the land as little nature hippies, we have technology. We can do better than treat each other as animals. By your logic we shouldn’t have any laws. Murder someone? That’s ok the victim shouldn’t have been so weak. Pretty lousy argument.

1

irisheals t1_isklse4 wrote

Just like all of Europe?

13

turnshavetabled t1_isknpwt wrote

Yes

1

rhodopensis t1_islxafb wrote

Therefore they deserve as much political representation in their own homelands as any Europeans living in Europe. Because the existence of wars between European nations doesn’t cause Europeans to lose any right to that. Nor between any other nations in any continent.

6

turnshavetabled t1_islyv4d wrote

How dumb are you? You do realize that the nations there now in Europe aren’t the same ones that were there in the beginning. The ones that are no longer there because they were conquered have no right to demand their land back now lmao. You have no argument and possibly no brain either

−5

tbbHNC89 t1_iskom2p wrote

"We can't give any of the land you were on when we kicked you off of it and genocided the rest of you because it had previously been contested before we got here" is just varsity levels of some of the dumbest bullshit I've ever heard. I'm genuinely impressed.

Edit: if you're gonna block me you should at least give me a few minutes to read whatever response you vomited up to defend your attempt to assuage your misplaced colonizer guilt by writing off reparatory actions by the US government for indigenous peoples completely.

9

TheJenerator65 t1_isl5p0i wrote

It’s so weak it’s not really worth your time, but to soothe your curiosity:

“Good job bringing your political beliefs into a conversation where they realistically shouldn’t have any pull but you managed to try and shoehorn them in here anyway. Seriously good try. The point that keeps eluding you is that conquered peoples don’t deserve their land back just because. We have as much right to the land as anyone else and we fought and pushed them off of it hundreds of years ago. And make no mistake the natives here gave as good as they got, they like to romanticize it in a lot of the things you probably watch being a social justice warrior but they were brutal to the settlers as well. Your opinion is childish and misinformed”

−2

turnshavetabled t1_iskr7ws wrote

Good job bringing your political beliefs into a conversation where they realistically shouldn’t have any pull but you managed to try and shoehorn them in here anyway. Seriously good try. The point that keeps eluding you is that conquered peoples don’t deserve their land back just because. We have as much right to the land as anyone else and we fought and pushed them off of it hundreds of years ago. And make no mistake the natives here gave as good as they got, they like to romanticize it in a lot of the things you probably watch being a social justice warrior but they were brutal to the settlers as well. Your opinion is childish and misinformed

−11

artaig t1_isln61d wrote

Not to mention devastating what became the great plains with intensive agriculture. They all reverted from agrarian societies to nomadic tribes. The natives "in tune with the nature" argument is just ridiculous.

0

SnapcasterWizard t1_iskj9yv wrote

Not really a "feel good" comment to imply racial ownership of land that goes through blood lines.

5

Braglion t1_ismlgiy wrote

Not really a "feel good" comment to imply honoring a deal with what was essentially a nation, even if generation's later, is the same thing as giving a racial ownership of land

4