Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Imagine the possible legal implications!
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Frederick" data-source="post: 3178963" data-attributes="member: 17825"><p>an agreement between two individuals governed by the law is different in my view than an agreement between two sovereign/separate nations. I don't argue that it sucked what happened to the Native Americans, but it was merely the story of human civilization. A weaker nomadic tribe displaced by a stronger, more centralized one.</p><p></p><p>Treaties are important, but we have to ask, Is it OK that in the United States there is a government who has its basis in race and heredity? those treaties were signed in a very different time and era, and they're not applicable nor do they make sense today. Let's not let our emotions disguise the modern implications of these treaties. We have to adapt them to modern times. Are reservations and tribal sovereignty even really in the best interests of the members of those tribes? or does it merely continue for the indian continued dependence on the federal government?</p><p></p><p>treaties are not Bible text. Even the Constitution can be changed, and there is good reason for that. treaties are merely textual agreements, not permanent features. They're only law insofar as we agree to them. The Natives are just as capable of doing the same, only that their power is much weaker than ours by virtue of the reality that only 2% of the modern United States constituted native Americans. The only way to get justice in the way some seek it would be by basically dissolving half the United States or more.</p><p></p><p>and if outright conquest is better for the United States, so be it. To me, what we did to the Native Americans constituted a conquest, and the 'agreement' was in name only. The treaties were merely pretexts, excuses for the practical facts on the ground.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Frederick, post: 3178963, member: 17825"] an agreement between two individuals governed by the law is different in my view than an agreement between two sovereign/separate nations. I don't argue that it sucked what happened to the Native Americans, but it was merely the story of human civilization. A weaker nomadic tribe displaced by a stronger, more centralized one. Treaties are important, but we have to ask, Is it OK that in the United States there is a government who has its basis in race and heredity? those treaties were signed in a very different time and era, and they're not applicable nor do they make sense today. Let's not let our emotions disguise the modern implications of these treaties. We have to adapt them to modern times. Are reservations and tribal sovereignty even really in the best interests of the members of those tribes? or does it merely continue for the indian continued dependence on the federal government? treaties are not Bible text. Even the Constitution can be changed, and there is good reason for that. treaties are merely textual agreements, not permanent features. They're only law insofar as we agree to them. The Natives are just as capable of doing the same, only that their power is much weaker than ours by virtue of the reality that only 2% of the modern United States constituted native Americans. The only way to get justice in the way some seek it would be by basically dissolving half the United States or more. and if outright conquest is better for the United States, so be it. To me, what we did to the Native Americans constituted a conquest, and the 'agreement' was in name only. The treaties were merely pretexts, excuses for the practical facts on the ground. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Imagine the possible legal implications!
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom