Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
If the Democrats gives blacks reparations, are they going to give Native Americans our land back?
If I may ask, why wouldn't it have been Native American land? Weren't they here first?It was never Native American land
It was Indian land. I use native American because now people immediately think from India when I say Indian.It was never Native American land
If I may ask, why wouldn't it have been Native American land? Weren't they here first?
On a different note, I appreciate your political threads.
While all is true, that has nothing to do with the land not being theirs.I have derailed my own thread. Anyway they were more nomadic except the pueblos and Acuma Indians. They didn't have an borders or established countries. They fought and enslaved each other. They were as hostile to each other as they were to the white man so even they did not recognize each others land at times.
While all is true, that has nothing to do with the land not being theirs.
It has everything to do with it. No boundaries, nomadic people cannot say "from here to here this is our land" No boundaries means one cannot lay claim to the land. Since tribes fought and enslaved each other then even Indians did not recognize whos land was whos.
While it is true they were here they were also elsewhere at one time. For instance the Navajos came down from the Canadian area and in nomadic fashion stayed along the southern border but never any particular place. They would survive by going into Mexico and stealing livestock. Sorry but you don't get to lay claim to land you do not stay on and set borders.
You are stretching hard to try to justify an injustice. If the Indians did not own the land, why did U.S. govt. make and break treaties with them?It has everything to do with it. No boundaries, nomadic people cannot say "from here to here this is our land" No boundaries means one cannot lay claim to the land. Since tribes fought and enslaved each other then even Indians did not recognize whos land was whos.
While it is true they were here they were also elsewhere at one time. For instance the Navajos came down from the Canadian area and in nomadic fashion stayed along the southern border but never any particular place. They would survive by going into Mexico and stealing livestock. Sorry but you don't get to lay claim to land you do not stay on and set borders.
You are stretching hard to try to justify an injustice. If the Indians did not own the land, why did U.S. govt. make and break treaties with them?
You are remembering white mans "facts."Ask the Democrats. Anyway they were just as violent to us as they were to each other. Any number of reasons. And no I don't have to try hard to remember history and facts.
You are remembering white mans "facts."
It was our land. We were here thousands of years before Europeans. The fact we fought each other has nothing to do with our ownership of the land. Had you not invaded us, we would not have been "violent" to you. What you call violence, I call defense of our way of life. Why don't you justify the Trail of Tears while you are at it? Have any white mans "facts" to give me on that one?
We were invaded. How should we have treated you?There is no doubt white men treated Indians terribly in some cases and not as bad in other cases than Indians would have us believe. However, so did Indians. No one is guilt free and no one is justified.
I see your point. Thanks.I have derailed my own thread. Anyway they were more nomadic except the pueblos and Acuma Indians. They didn't have an borders or established countries. They fought and enslaved each other. They were as hostile to each other as they were to the white man so even they did not recognize each others land at times.