Since whites in America broke dozens of Indian Treaties, aren't they illegally in this continent?

Question

Take for example the Treaty of Easton, according to which Natives wouldn't fight on the French side but Anglos wouldn't build settlements beyond the Allegheny Mountains.

However, as soon as the war agains the French was won, the treaty was broken. Similarly, other 426 treaties with Amerindian peoples are currently stalled because whites broke them and don't care to renegotiate them.

Considering this, the presence of whites in the American continent is based on "might is right," not on "rule of law." Hence it is hypocritical to demand that other people follow the "rule of law" and respect the illegal frontiers established by whites through the use of force.

For a short description of some treaties in the USA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_and_Native_American_treaties

Many more apply to Canada and white-ruled Latin American countries. In short, this continent has been stolen and kept through "might is right," not through legality.

Since whites now-a-days pretend to do things legally, then why not even try to get to an agreement with the tribes that are suing governments from Canada to Chile? Why add insult to injury?

If you ask others to follow the law, why not try to follow it yourselves first and arrive at an agreement with those whose rights you violated?

Is there any other land where the Invaders signed agreements, got settled with the help of the Natives, later broke those agreements and currently refuse to negotiate with the descendants of the Native landholders?

Is there any other land where those who ethnically belong to the Natives are denied freedom of mobility, while the invaders are free to move everywhere, and that is done citing "the rule of law" when in fact such "rule of law" is imposed on the Natives but not followed by the Invaders, who refuse to comply with the treaties their ancestors signed and to even re-negotiate them?

THE POINT IS LEGALITY. So far whites refuse to acknowledge the treaties they themselves signed, they are ILLEGALLY HERE.

Any other argument is just saying that the land belongs to the better armed and that war is a legal means to acquire or recuperate territory.

In that case Native American uprisings are not just understandable, but LEGALLY JUSTIFIED even under Western law.

It'd be like stealing back your property from a thief. No judge in the Western system of law could send you to jail over that, since you have the receipt proving that the property is YOURS.

Answer 1

You are quite correct. We Americans are squatting on land over which we have no legal or even moral right. Do you know that the entire land on which San Fransasico stand belongs to one Indian chief for which necessary documents exist with his successors. However, not only no attention was paid to their pitiable pleas not compensation worth the name was paid to them. However, inscritable are tje ways of Law. Do you know when Gen Ayyun Khan usurped power in Pakistan somebody approached the Supreme Court for the breach of the Constitution. The Court declared that since success justifies everything no action under the law could be taken against the usurper.Again ,when during the Emergency a young man from Kerala arrested by the police disappeared the Court with a heavy heart declared that the habeas corps provisions were not applicable during this period.The young man was never traced and must have been liquidated by the police.This being the position in law there is nothing anyubody could do about it. It is a far cry for the Red Indians to come to power and then pull the Whites before the Coirt ofd Law.The position in Canada and even in Latin America is no different.

During the presidentiship of Bill Clinton there was a move for payment of compensation to the Indians for the takeover. But when it was found that even calculating the damage to them at the lowest rate over all these years it would run into millions and millions of dollars the plan was quitely dropped. Incidentally, if I remember well, a similalr plan to compensate the blacks fof their enslavement was perhaps under consideration at about the same time but was quietly buried when the damagers worked out to similar astronomical sums.

Answer 2

And the deeds of great grandfathers have what to do with imigration?

The actions of the Americans was deplorable against the natives. The actions of the Spanish was blatent genocide at times and even worse. So should all who have Spanish blood be removed from South America? This is like the slave reparation issue. You cannot hold the son accountable for the sins of the father. They are not the same person and may have done things completely different.

As for illegals the big problem is that they don't Americanize. If they came over here, learned English, adopted America as thier country, rooted for us in international sports, served in the military, raised thier children to be Americans then there wouldn't be a problem. What is a problem is the flood of illegals, far more than we can support and no hope of them ever Americanizing. There are children of illegals who speak little or no English, who feel no alliegiance to this country and no interest in doing so. We are a place to escape from war and poverty but they are bringing those ills over here with them. If thier children grew up being Americans they would not be locked in the same poverty cycle thier parents are. Would not be caught in a crossfire of being citizens of a nation they have sometimes never even seen but not citizens of the nation they actually were born and raised in except for a birth certificate which makes them American in name only.

When you come to America come to be an American. That means it's cool to be proud of your ancestry but you know what? You are here in America. That is a new heritage that you exchange for your old one. Your are NOT a Hispanic american, not an African american you are either American and who cares where you or your anscestors came from.

Side note. Whites were only a majority. There were a number of free Blacks, a scattering of other ethnic groups besides Europeans in the Atlantic colonies. In the West coast quite a few Asian, Chinese in particuler were also part of America during the time the Native treaties were made and broken. As for the Spanish, quite a few Moors (Spanish of predominently Arab or Black heritage) were among the colinists who came here. In fact Moors were quite frequently those who went as they faced heavy prejudice in Spain and the new world meant a chance to get away from some of that.

In response to your details...
Yes in fact there are quite a few instances of Colonization as you describe. India by first Muslims then by the English. Many areas of China and Korea have have similer situations in Japanese invasions over the centuries. All of Russian under the USSR suffered such. Aborigionies in Australia, Celts under Roman law, Moors in first Egypt, then Carthage, then Roman, then Vandal, then Islamic rule.

Answer 3

you mention taking back whats been stolen but in real estate theres something called adverse possesion it means if you lived on the land openley and paid the taxes improved the land and did this for 5 years then that property is yours even if someone else owned it when you got ther.if so what you are saying is wrong about the judge cause precedent has been set and maintaned on this matter,i agree much of this continent was ''taken'' but the indians broke thier agreements too ,as ther concept of land ownership is much different then the european i read a lot history and many times the they would sell the land and then renege,as they thought it was wierd that you own the land ,this concept of exclusive use of the land was alien to thier ways of thinking cause they thought if you can carry it, then its yours but you cant carry land around so you cant own it.this is where the term ''indian giver'' came from cause they sell the land and agree to leave and then they would not ,so both sides were wrong in their dealings with another some by design some by accident sad but true

Answer 4

You may be right, but how do you propose to get millions of white Americans out of America? Not to mention that many white Americans were not around at the time these were broken, how would you decide who gets to stay and who doesn't? Is it fair to blame the whole of the white American citizens for the acts of a few?

I'm Australian, and reasonably unbiased on issues such as this - just so ya don't decide to attack me for my opinions!

Answer 5

Get a grip!! The USA hasn't 'stolen' any more than any other country. Wars were fought, some won some lost, history was made. Done deal!!

Entering the USA undocumented is ILLEGAL today, now, 2006, this century!!

Comprende'?

Answer 6

Because native Tribes brought war and suffering to other native tribes, do you think I should be able to bring war against those I choose?

Answer 7

Its just not something anyone knows anything about. they believe married people need to be in love, that is the value they are taught is to be the most important. they do not know that arranged marriages can still be in love, because love is a choice we make anyway. they do not know that love is something we choose to do and that people in arranged marriages can still have passionate loving relationships. (at least, I assume they can, cant they? You seem to know more about this than I do.) If people in arranged marriages can still be just as in love with eachother as those in other marriages, then I see absolutely no problem with them.

Answer 8

yeah, I think your right!
funny fact, germany as done so many things to remeber the holocost and is still ashamid( did i spell that right? dont think so) of what has happened in their countries history but america, well, I dont see alot of sad faces and memorials( i think i spelt that wrong too) here.

Answer 9

when the native americans came here from asia via the bering straight land bridge, were they legal? I guess you didn't go back far enough.

Answer 10

Can you tell me of a countries whose inhabitants are the originals ones there?