Is what America did to the Native Americans analogous to what

>>2133955
Nah, not only was there no international law at the time, but fucking nobody recognized the Indian shitpiles as nations.

>>2133955
They are both examples of a more powerful force crushing and pushing a native group off their lands. The small details are the same but the actual process is much the same. Justifying pushing the natives off their land by saying they lacked the idea of property is wrong in two senses. One many native tribes gained this idea of property from the Europeans before being kicked off their lands. Second most other tribes had a sense that the property was community owned which is slightly different than nobody owning it. (That being said it was not uniform in any way and many natives had varying beliefs.

>>2133982
>>2133955
But the law doesn't always conform with what is right. And there actually were proscriptions against settlement at various times in colonial and American history, but the settlers broke them. There were also treaties that were broken.

>>2134005
Indians were master treaty breakers so it was only apt the Americans ignored that shit too.

File: free_him1.png (630KB, 628x518px) Image search: [Google]

630KB, 628x518px

>>2133982
I am not sure I completely understand that argument. I am wary because it sort of sounds very arbitrary.

It's like when people say that something is immoral and they refer to the UN declaration of Human Rights. It's not like that document has an philosophical justifications for the statements it make, it just happens to have been published by an organization with a specific kind of reputation.

Why is international recognition of a place the standard we have for these kinds of matters?

File: raw.png (420KB, 449x447px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 449x447px

>>2134002
Thanks for this answer.

Do you have any sources for those claims? Native American anthropology is kind of tricky it seems.

>>2134012
Because things like nations and sovereignty don't exist in a vacuum, somebody has to recognize them.

>>2134033
Yeah, but peoples and ethnic groups do exist, and if they've been inhabiting some land for some time, it doesn't take a doctor of philosophy to see that pushing them off their land is wrong, in most modern conceptions of morality.

>>2134044
Objectively they aren't entitled to shit, hence why recognition is needed.

>>2134064
Do people get a choice to recognize someone else?

>>2134044
https://youtu.be/f82d7-SVzCw

>>2134111
>the Indians pushed other indians off the land at some point in the past
>therefore it is OK to push them off their land

So now we're in a situation where it is OK to push anyone except maybe certain Pacific Islanders off their land.

>>2134215
>therefore it is OK to push them off their land
You got it bud.

>>2134215
I think the point is it's not really "their" land as they stole it in the first place. Can you steal from a thief?

>>2134222
>>2134226
So it's OK for illegals to come to the US since the land was stolen? Basically you are just saying might makes right, which is an acceptable position but if that's the position you want to take them be prepared to accept all the consequences.

>>2134235
>So it's OK for illegals to come to the US since the land was stolen?
It's okay for them to try and if the Americans let them, it's no problem. Right of conquest and all. And if the Americans push back and win it's also no problem.

>>2134255
OK I can agree with that. I mean at least it's consistent.

>>2134222
So you're saying if I shoot you and get away with it, I can claim your land?

Sweet brb going to anon's house :)

>>2134266
Is my house stolen property? Then yes.

>>2134274
By your own definition, yes it is because it rests on land that was given by right of conquest.

>>2134296
I'm not American.

>>2134316
unless you're a falklander or some other meme your land is stolen too