Was The USA stolen from Native Americans?
I wunna think that you think that the USA was stolen from Native Americans or the Europeans just borrowed it.
It was The Native Land.
Side Score: 7
|
 |
Europeans Borrowed land
Side Score: 13
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
Strictly speaking, there are no native americans; humans didn't evolve in north or south america. What we call Native Americans are descendants of immigrants, not natives by any stretch. Did the tribes we call Native Americans own the land? They would need to be owners of the land in order for anyone to steal it from them, after all. That's somewhat of a dubious question. Sure, the colonists more or less subjugated them, and took the land over for their own usage, but where is that not the case? I defy anyone to name a region of the world that 1) Is largely inhabited by man and 2) Has never once been fought over. I assert that every single territory occupied by humans has been "stolen" and "stolen back," repeatedly throughout history, so why does it matter whether the USA specifically was "stolen?" Side: It was The Native Land.
I say the land was stolen from Native Americans, but just wanted to address some of your points. Strictly speaking, there are no native americans; humans didn't evolve in north or south america. Reductionist logic can get us information that is of no us if applied willy nilly. By this logic, there are no Europeans either, we are all Africans. As for not evolving after Africa many genetic anthropologists would disagree, in fact they point out to specific variations in populations to note that people have adapted to their surroundings. I am loathe to make any genetic argument for or against race, so I won't. Race as we know it and apply it is a social construct. Native Americans are culturally distinct from other populations. Saying Natives don't / ever existed is like saying Bavarian culture does not/has not existed. Did the tribes we call Native Americans own the land? They would need to be owners of the land in order for anyone to steal it from them, after all. That is a very Euro centric view on things to take on this, but we are Euro centric people. In the mid 1900's the UK usurped land from Kenyans as the Kenyans did not have the concept of ownership of land much like Native Americans. Whether any person had a concept of ownership of land or not is a bit irrelevant though. If I catch a fish that is my fish through the work I put into getting it. If a person or people toil with the land, add their own work in shaping and cultivating the land for homes crops and aesthetics they certainly have claim to that land. Natives certainly worked the land, after all the settlers didn't just settle next to Natives, they settled where the Natives had done their work. I assert that every single territory occupied by humans has been "stolen" and "stolen back," repeatedly throughout history, so why does it matter whether the USA specifically was "stolen?" To say this happened to everyone is an attempt to put the usurpers on level as the people who had their stuff usurped or to justify the actions of the offending party. It screams "Sally did it too!!" as if that makes it ok for Suzy to do the action. It is not just that the land was 'stolen' that matters, often this point comes to the forefront though. It matters because the US governments actions were atrocious during this time in recent history in the name of land grabs for its people. Forced removal of Native children who were put in religious boarding schools, broken treaties, germ warfare (disguised as help no less)and other genocidal practices. I am sure most Americans don't realize how recent some of these issues really are. many Natives still haven't received what they were promised in treaties and still deal with land grabs today. When people say this happens the world over they are sweeping recent history under the rug and ignoring these issues that are still affecting Natives today. As Natives are also US citizens I would say this matters or should matter to Americans as it helps explain some of the issues that arise from the culture clash between Natives and other more mainstream cultures. Side: It was The Native Land.
2
points
I recognize your points, but this debate wasn't written regarding the general atrocities that the tribes were exposed to; it was specifically written about whether the USA was stolen from Native Americans. Certainly, what they were subjected to was horrible, and of course it matters. I'm not attempting to sweep that under the rug or downplay that- it's merely not relevant information insofar as this debate is concerned. "Sally did it too" Is actually a very, very apt comparison. Sally did it to, so it should be ok for Suzy to do it, right? Well, no, not if what Sally did was considered wrong by the subjective morality of the larger community. But we aren't talking "Sally did it too." We're talking "Sally, Tom, Joe, Mommy, Daddy, Uncle Bob, and EVERYONE ELSE did it too." I assert that fighting over resources and territory is not an aberration, but a common practice across all human civilization as well as the vast majority of animals. Humans are far from the only species to fight over resources and territory; to do so is normal and natural. I'm aware that something being natural does not necessarily mean that it is good, and nor does something being normal mean that it is good, but I feel that it's both misleading and a grave injustice to specifically decry the actions of one group while ignoring the fact that it's done by everyone. That is my objection to this debate, and the reason for my post. If war and conquest are morally wrong, then it's a wrong that we all share- including the 'native american' tribes for more or less the entirety of their history prior to the arrival of the colonists. Even if war isn't as common as it once was, even within existing countries there are internal struggles over both resources and territory, ranging from different portions of the government at a national level, passing through disputes over land usage/zoning at a city level, through street gangs fighting over a neighborhood as part of its territory, to children argueing over whether the other child is on "my side" of the back seat of the car. And an inverse to your argument- focusing on the recent events is a case of sweeping the remaining entirety of history under the rug, and in so doing downplaying the overwhelming majority of suffering and inhuman treatment that has taken up so much of the history of our species. An injustice that occurred two generations ago does not carry more weight than an injustice that occurred twenty generations ago. Side: It was The Native Land.
1
point
|
3
points
3
points
3
points
|
