Did Europeans have a right to settle in North America?

beorna · Mar 24, 2012

Rongo said:
So you would say then that the first person to arrive in a region can plant his flag and proclaim that all the land within a thousand km of that flag belongs to him, and everybody is supposed to respect that.

And I suppose you'd be fine with saying the United States owns the moon because we were the first to plant a flag on it.

one could accept a settlement as "right", if the owners don't use the land and agreed in the settlement and if the settlers then respect the original owners. As far as I know is that not what happened.
The USA have a density of 32 inhabitants per sq.km. Germany has a density of 229 and japan of 338. So you would support German and japanese claims for the USA, because the USA are a sparely populated country and you don't use the land appropriately?

Rongo · Mar 24, 2012

Bismarck said:
The act of planting a flag is a symbolic gesture. The meaning it has derives solely from the respect other people give to it. Britain might have been the first to plant their flag in Antarctica, but this didn't prevent other nations from laying claim and neither does it prevent nations coming together to work out an amicable settlement. The problem with your eastern seaboard example is that Spain sold the territory to the French, who in turned sold it to the US. Thus, it no longer belonged to them.

I get the feeling you're arguing just for the sake of arguing here. I'm not even sure we disagree at a fundamental level. My comment was about the western United States, not the eastern, but I suggest we get back to the topic of Europeans settling in North America and avoid useless squabbling on unrelated tangents. At least, that's what I'm going to do...

d'artanian · Mar 24, 2012

Krystian said:
Thanks for the sources on the situation of Western Europe in those centuries, i will certainly read a bit more on the subject.

The slave trade you described with Romanians ..... sounds to me much more like the modern day human trafficking - something as bad, and yet much different from what "slave trade" is usually understood by - the slave trade of the Roman times or that of blacks from Africa. The quote from you that i disagreed with in the first place made it sound as though such a slave trade existed in Europe at the time and included eastern europeans - a sort of eastern europeans quivalent of the African slave trade. That is quite wrong a perception, since in reality there was a limited trafficking of poor romanian women. Most of Eastern Europe was in no position to produce slaves or even immigrants, since people did not live worse than in western Europe.

I have read eye witness accounts of the slave trade in Romania, early/mid 1800's, wherein Gypsies/Roma were sold on auction blocks, killed at the whim of their masters, children sold away from their parents, etc. It all sounded very much like the African slave trade.

Wiki has some info on it: [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Romania"]Slavery in Romania - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Rongo · Mar 24, 2012

beorna said:
The USA have a density of 32 inhabitants per sq.km. Germany has a density of 229 and japan of 338. So you would support German and japanese claims for the USA, because the USA are a sparely populated country and you don't use the land appropriately?

No, I sure wouldn't. The United States is a sovereign nation with precise, internationally recognized borders. However, if any German or Japanese people want land in the United States they are more than welcome to purchase it on the open market. And they are welcome to come here, as millions have done throughout U.S. history.

Fox · Mar 24, 2012

beorna said:
The USA have a density of 32 inhabitants per sq.km. Germany has a density of 229 and japan of 338. So you would support German and japanese claims for the USA, because the USA are a sparely populated country and you don't use the land appropriately?

Well, according to this, between 1820 and 1996, 498,333 Japanese (8 million total from Asia collectively) and 7,105,301 Germans (36 million total from Europe collectively) immigrated to America. It seems to me that denizens of both country have been moving to the USA and taking advantage of some of that excess land, and I see no reason why they ought to be disallowed from doing so. Indeed, people moving from an overpopulated land to a less populated one seems like a very good thing for everyone involved.

I have to admit, I really dislike this idea that Europeans, by dint of their ethnic heritage, had no right to set foot on vastly underpopulated American soil. It reeks of racism.

Bismarck · Mar 24, 2012

Rongo said:
I get the feeling you're arguing just for the sake of arguing here. I'm not even sure we disagree at a fundamental level. My comment was about the western United States, not the eastern, but I suggest we get back to the topic of Europeans settling in North America and avoid useless squabbling on unrelated tangents. At least, that's what I'm going to do...

Oh sure, I essentially agree with most of your stance, it is just that the criticisms about the process of claiming undiscovered lands are made without offering an alternative. It is easy to knock the process but what would people have them do instead? It seems to me that 'first in first served' is as good as any other method.

wilber6150 · Mar 24, 2012

For some tribes I have a hard time feeling compassion for.. For example up here in New York, the Iroquois were known for their conquests and capture of other tribes lands..They were an aggrssive combative Confederation..So its hard for me to feel sorry when the same thing happens to them...Karma....lol

beorna · Mar 24, 2012

Fox said:
Well, according to this, between 1820 and 1996, 498,333 Japanese (8 million total from Asia collectively) and 7,105,301 Germans (36 million total from Europe collectively) immigrated to America. It seems to me that denizens of both country have been moving to the USA and taking advantage of some of that excess land, and I see no reason why they ought to be disallowed from doing so. Indeed, people moving from an overpopulated land to a less populated one seems like a very good thing for everyone involved.

I have to admit, I really dislike this idea that Europeans, by dint of their ethnic heritage, had no right to set foot on vastly underpopulated American soil. It reeks of racism.

I don't speak about settlers, but of germany and Japan as state. Imagine german settlers would land in New York, put their black-red and yellow flag into the ground and tell the new york people, that they can be happy now to be subjects of the great german nation. If the New York people make trouble we kill them and chase them away. If here are really people who would support this as "right", well.....

The OP started these thread to justify the crimes of the colonist, the colonial states and the USA as good-given historical act, as a kind of darwinistic consequence. As if really people would demand, that the US citizens have to leave.
Have I seen it correct, that you're from Korea? So you don't mind the japanese invasion, too? If Rongo would be a japanese, I suppose he would excuse this too.

beorna · Mar 24, 2012

wilber6150 said:
...Karma....lol

yeah, like 9/11.... lol

Brisieis · Mar 24, 2012

jeroenrottgering said:
No, but for real I think it isn't a question of right. Most likely they would have done the same to us if they were so far developed.

This is correct, whether it was right or wrong is another matter, but jeroenrottgering's statement here is true.

As we can tell from history, it is a constant battle between each and every one of us, let's not imply that people who are conquered would not be the conquerers themselves if they had the upper hand, the fact is, history tells us otherwise.

beorna · Mar 24, 2012

Briseis, the OP question is "Did they have the right?". No, they had the power.

Brisieis · Mar 24, 2012

beorna said:
Briseis, the OP question is "Did they have the right?". No, they had the power.

I was replying to a comment made by someone which is relevant, not the OP.

Fox · Mar 24, 2012

beorna said:
I don't speak about settlers, but of germany and Japan as state. Imagine german settlers would land in New York, put their black-red and yellow flag into the ground and tell the new york people, that they can be happy now to be subjects of the great german nation.

To this day the native tribes of the United States and Canada have recognized sovereignty, and the European settlers signed a variety of treaties with them in just such a capacity. The native tribes simply weren't absorbed in the fashion you're referring to; they may in modern times have all of the rights of an American/Canadian citizen, but they've also got sovereign rights as their own people as well. I'll also go ahead and point out that the fact that individual Japanese, Germans, and so forth are able to peacefully immigrate to the American continent without having to bring a small invading force with them to ensure their safety is a clear and obvious improvement over previous situations.

beorna said:
Have I seen it correct, that you're from Korea? So you don't mind the japanese invasion, too? If Rongo would be a japanese, I suppose he would excuse this too.

Japan did invade and colonize Korea in the past, and if Japanese rule had persisted until this day, I have to admit that I would not be especially sad about it. Being completely non-ethnocentric and non-nationalistic, matters like that are not especially of importance to me.

In my eyes, as I've said, the crimes of the colonists (and, for that matter, of the natives) consist of individual unethical acts (such as unprovoked violence). If you want to decry the colonists for all too frequently engaging in such acts, I won't disagree with you (in fact, I'll vigorously agree with you). But if you're seriously going to say that they had no right to set foot on and make lives for themselves on American soil simply they were Europeans -- or even because they were subjects of European polities -- I'm just going to have to disagree.

beorna · Mar 24, 2012

Fox said:
To this day the native tribes of the United States and Canada have recognized sovereignty, and the European settlers signed a variety of treaties with them in just such a capacity. The native tribes simply weren't absorbed in the fashion you're referring to.

Yes, the extorted treaties. I suppose the USA have broken more treaties in their short history than european states have made since the medieval.

Fox said:
Japan did invade and colonize Korea in the past, and if Japanese rule had persisted until this day, I have to admit that I would not be especially sad about it. Being completely non-ethnocentric and non-nationalistic, matters like that are not especially of importance to me.

In my eyes, as I've said, the crimes of the colonists (and, for that matter, of the natives) consist of individual unethical acts (such as unprovoked violence). If you want to decry the colonists for all too frequently engaging in such acts, I won't disagree with you (in fact, I'll vigorously agree with you). But if you're seriously going to say that they had no right to set foot on and make lives for themselves on American soil simply they were Europeans -- or even because they were subjects of European polities -- I'm just going to have to disagree.

The right of somebody is limited, when he hurts the rights of others.

Fox · Mar 24, 2012

beorna said:
Yes, the extorted treaties. I suppose the USA have broken more treaties in their short history than european states have made since the medieval.

No doubt there were some violations (though many are still honored to this day; I remember recently seeing a program about fishing treaties and the headaches they cause due to their being honored), but the point is simply that the sort of absorption you're referring to did not occur.

beorna said:
The right of somebody is limited, when he hurts the rights of others.

Well, I've already said I don't think much of the concept of ethical rights, but I agree with the principle you're articulating. This of course means that any Native American who harmed a peaceful European settler in any way was behaving unethically by your own admission, which cuts to the core of my case: rather than talking about who did or didn't have the right to be there, it's far more rational and reasonable to speak about how people (and peoples) comported themselves in relation to one another. From my perspective, many people on both sides were peaceful and blameless, and some on both sides were vicious and unethical. The latter on both sides deserve some measure of scorn and condemnation, but the former do not, regardless of their ethnicity.

kromanti · Mar 24, 2012

SomeGuy said:
You said "If Europeans would have settled in america without all the robbery and killing they did they world would have been a much better place" and you haven't responded to that. Because you can't. I could claim that if the Native Americans didn't die off in such great numbers that the world would be a disaster, in total disarray. Predictably, you'd disagree with that assessment considering I don't have any evidence to support this. That's my point.

Fact of the matter is, the Native Americans couldn't properly defend their land or their way of life. It sucks for them, that's true, but then again it's happened to nearly every civilization. It's just the way humanity has been since the beginning of civilization. There are probably hundreds of tribes and cultures that we'll never know about because another group came in and replaced it. Why aren't you crying out against those atrocities? What makes the Native Americans so special in this regard? Not all of them were innocent, peaceful people either, since they were constantly fighting each other and did exactly the same acts you vehemently speak out against (and NO, I'm not saying they were all violent). They're human, they do bad things, too.

when i said the world would of been a better place i meant for the indians SIMPLE LOGIC if they did not die off due to europeans there would be a whole lot more of them today which is a good thing for them. Yeah i know other they fought amongst themselves i am not disputing that.But they did not commit genocide on themselves and that's the difference, i hate the whitewashing of american history your just trying to make it look not as bad as it was. There is more than enough proof of that in the link i posted. European conquest in north america is unique because it was the only conquest that resulted in the what was almost the total destruction of a whole race of people. There is a difference in magnitude

Rongo · Mar 24, 2012

kromanti said:
Yeah i know other they fought amongst themselves i am not disputing that.But they did not commit genocide on themselves and that's the difference, i hate the whitewashing of american history your just trying to make it look not as bad as it was. There is more than enough proof of that in the link i posted. European conquest in north america is unique because it was the only conquest that resulted in the what was almost the total destruction of a whole race of people. There is a difference in magnitude

The difference is that some of the Native American tribes DID commit genocide, and the European/American governments did NOT. There are 6 million Native Americans living in the United States and Canada today, but the Erie tribe is gone:

The Erie Indians tribe was an indigenous people of North America of the Iroquoian branch of the Hokan-Siouan linguistic stock.

The Erie spoke a version of the Iroquois language which was apparently similar to that of the Huron.

In the Iroquoian language, the name Erie is a shortened form of Erielhonan, a word which means `long tail.' This is in reference to the mountain lion which roamed the domain of these people.

The word Erie means "cat" as well as "long tail", and the Erie were referred to as the Cat Nation.

The Erie Indian nation lived around the southern shores of Lake Erie. This is in the vicinity of present day Buffalo, New York, ranging west to Sandusky, Ohio. Around 1600, they numbered about 14,000 people.

Although they were sedentary farmers of the Eastern Woodlands area, they showed some Southeastern cultural traits, such as the use of poisoned arrows and the building of palisaded villages.

They were traditional enemies of the Iroquois League, and in 1656, after one of the most relentless and destructive Indian wars, the Erie were almost exterminated by the Iroquois. The surviving captives were either adopted or enslaved.

The Erie managed to elude contact with the white man. Apart from one brief encounter, the French were not able to reach them. Neither were the Dutch or the Swedish, although they did hear about them from other tribes.

Information about their culture and living conditions has, therefore been passed on to historians through second hand accounts from members of other tribes, most notably the Huron. From them we learn that the Erie lived in scattered villages which were stockaded for protection.

Their homes were the traditional long house that could house several families. They were, like most of the surrounding tribes, farmers and hunters. The main crops were corn, beans and squash.

Following the harvest they would embark on the winter hunt. During this time they would live in winter camps.

Although the Erie did not have contact with the Europeans, they did obtain trade goods from the Susquehannock. The Susquehannock were, however, careful to make sure that the Erie were not able to get their hands on the prize European possession, the firearm.

In order to satisfy their growing demand for European trade goods the Erie soon exhausted their local supplies of beaver, which they used to trade with other tribes for the white man's wares. This led them to encroach on other tribes hunting areas and this, inevitably, led to warfare.

In the winter of 1648-49, the Huron Confederacy was overrun by the Iroquois League. About 1651, the Erie were joined by a number of Huron refugees, fleeing from the destruction of their Confederation by the Iroquois. The Iroquois demanded that the Erie give these Huron over to them.

With hundreds of new warriors, the Erie refused. The western Iroquois (Seneca, Cayuga, and Onondaga) continued to view the refugees as a threat and were not willing to let the matter drop. A tense standoff lasted for nearly two years.

In 1651 the Mohawk and Oneida had begun a long war against the Susquehannock isolating the Erie from their only possible ally.

In 1653, an Erie raid into the Seneca homeland killed the Seneca sachem Annencraos. In an attempt to avoid open warfare, both sides agreed to a peace conference. However, in the course of a heated argument, one of the Erie warriors killed an Onondaga. The enraged Iroquois killed all 30 of the Erie representatives.

The Iroquois considered the Erie as dangerous opponents, so they first offered peace to the French before beginning the war. With their Huron allies either dead or scattered by the Iroquois, the French did not need much encouragement to agree.

The Erie inflicted heavy losses on the Iroquois but, without the benefit of firearms, they were destined to failure. The strength of these people is shown by the fact that it took the Iroquois two years to overcome the Erie.

By 1656 the Erie were a defeated people. Those that were not already dead were assimilated into the victorious tribes, most notably the Seneca.

The Erie ceased to exist at this time as a separate people. However small groups of Erie were to survive for another twenty five years.

Source: The Erie Indians, Avon, Ohio

kromanti · Mar 24, 2012

Krystian said:
There are two points in your discussion - that America was scarcely populated and that it was not scarcely populated, he may have not given that many reliable sources on his position, but you on the other hand gave absolutely no sources at all to prove it was densely populated. Why do you just sit there and expect him to prove it was scarcely populated and accept that if he can't, it means it was densely populated? It doesn't, and i highly doubt you can find any evidence at all that North America was anything but very scarcely populated at the end of the 15th century.

Actually i contend that no one really knows how populated north america was and i leave it at that. I resist any assertion that it was this number or that number. We really don't know. we only think we know, one man says it was 18 million some say 1 million with such a large range it leads me to believe that we don't know. I never said it was densely populated, but what fox and many other like him are trying to do is excuse the european conquest of america by saying that the indians were not using the land. That's crap to me just come out and say the Europeans conquered the land because they wanted to and committed genocide on the natives to keep it. it's no more complex than that. the link i posted has more that enough proof of this.

Ancientgeezer · Mar 24, 2012

No one has come to the support of the most exploited and marginalized community in history.
Around 40,000 BC (so they say), .... Sapiens Sapiens (Sap) invaded Europe, a territory for tens of millennia the exclusive home of .... Sapiens Neanderthalensis, or “Nat” as we will call him.
Sap, an alien, immigrant invader from the Middle East and Africa, claimed not only Europe, but the entire planet as their own without recourse to International Courts, treaties or any consideration for the indigenous population.
Apologists for Sap suggest that he brought new ideas, a superior social structure and the amazing benefits of the bone needle and the woomera, but the truth is that he stole the land, exploited Nat and forced him first into unviable enclaves and then into extinction.
Sap had no respect for Nat’s traditional ways of hunting that often involved the sacrifice of a few arms and legs but stole the available game using the unfair techniques of long-range spears, pits and stampede. While any reasonable people would have shared this technology, the selfish Sap used it to gain ascendancy over the unfortunate Nat.
Apart from monopolising Nat’s hunting grounds, the evil Saps set out to destroy Nat’s religion. Nat’s holy places, deep caves where ancestors were ritually eaten in order to ensure that their spirits remained with the tribe, were desecrated by Sap with vulgar graffiti of wild animals and handprints.
For thousands of years Sap has refused to pay compensation or reparations for the genocide of an entire sub-species, worse, the remains of Nat individuals are, to this day, dug up and put on humiliating display as if they were some form of trophy.
[FONT=&quot]Clearly this disgraceful wrong needs to be addressed.
[/FONT]

kromanti · Mar 24, 2012

Rongo said:
The difference is that some of the Native American tribes DID commit genocide, and the European/American governments did NOT. There are 6 million Native Americans living in the United States and Canada today, but the Erie tribe is gone:

Ok one tribe is gone but that's one tribe out of many how many native tribes are no more due to european expansions. These tribes would fight amongst each other then they would merge into one so the people continued that is why i say it is worse when other man conquers you.

Connecticut Indian Tribes and Languages

Search

Search

Did Europeans have a right to settle in North America?

Did Europeans have a right to settle in North America?

Yes, Europeans had the right to settle in North America

No, Europeans should have left North America to the Natives

beorna

Rongo

d'artanian

Rongo

Fox

Bismarck

wilber6150

beorna

beorna

Brisieis

beorna

Brisieis

Fox

beorna

Fox

kromanti

Rongo

kromanti

Ancientgeezer

kromanti

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions