You really don't understand the difference between your governement, and a group of invaders?
Native North Americans are not "special". If they have claims, then everyone has claims.
Yet you failed to respond to this point, and instead, discuss race, claiming the issue is that white people did something.
What?!
In my post, I described how those found here when Westerners arrived, were not the first here. This is historical fact. There were waves and waves of immigrants to the new world, over land bridges, over the pole, and by boat.
All before the 1500s. Going back thousands and thousands of years. All resulting in displacement, war, violence, death, and seizure of territory and land.
But to you, all is important is... what? The last event?
If so, where is my historical land? When do I get it back?
But I guess that's not important too, because it is ok (as I said before) for one white group, to invade and take from another?
Here's another example. This isn't from the old world, but the new.
When the US ceeded from the UK, it took over land vacated by empire loyalists.
Do those people get their land back too? Of so, why not?
And of your response is, "it was native land, there before, so the loyalist has no claim!", then why does the native have claim, who stole it from the peoples there before them?
The point is, you either have to go back to the very first person to settle land, back millions of years in the old world, and tens of thousands on the new, and give the land back to their descendants...
Or you have to pick a point. Is it "but white people did it!"? Or is it "the last guy that had it!"?
If so, see my empire loyalist claim, and so on..
Or is it "the guy who has it now"?
Which is it?
And beyond all of this, not a single native north American alive, has had any land "stolen" from them. Their ancestors lost land, yes, but not people alive today.
How do you address this?
It sounds to me that your logic is "a people somewhere lost land, like happened all through human history", so therefore "the laws of the US should be null and void re: land ownership".
I don't get it.
It's like saying "wars happen, and people died, so it's ok if Bob murders Judy".
Native North Americans are not "special". If they have claims, then everyone has claims.
Yet you failed to respond to this point, and instead, discuss race, claiming the issue is that white people did something.
What?!
In my post, I described how those found here when Westerners arrived, were not the first here. This is historical fact. There were waves and waves of immigrants to the new world, over land bridges, over the pole, and by boat.
All before the 1500s. Going back thousands and thousands of years. All resulting in displacement, war, violence, death, and seizure of territory and land.
But to you, all is important is... what? The last event?
If so, where is my historical land? When do I get it back?
But I guess that's not important too, because it is ok (as I said before) for one white group, to invade and take from another?
Here's another example. This isn't from the old world, but the new.
When the US ceeded from the UK, it took over land vacated by empire loyalists.
Do those people get their land back too? Of so, why not?
And of your response is, "it was native land, there before, so the loyalist has no claim!", then why does the native have claim, who stole it from the peoples there before them?
The point is, you either have to go back to the very first person to settle land, back millions of years in the old world, and tens of thousands on the new, and give the land back to their descendants...
Or you have to pick a point. Is it "but white people did it!"? Or is it "the last guy that had it!"?
If so, see my empire loyalist claim, and so on..
Or is it "the guy who has it now"?
Which is it?
And beyond all of this, not a single native north American alive, has had any land "stolen" from them. Their ancestors lost land, yes, but not people alive today.
How do you address this?
It sounds to me that your logic is "a people somewhere lost land, like happened all through human history", so therefore "the laws of the US should be null and void re: land ownership".
I don't get it.
It's like saying "wars happen, and people died, so it's ok if Bob murders Judy".