~All land obtained by the US was obtained "legally". To the victor belong the spoils. All through history, the invaders have taken the lands they conquered and they held onto it for as long as they could. See Babylon, Persia, Egypt, Greece, Rome, Spain, France, China and Great Britain for examples of how this basic principal works. The most successful were the Teutons whose various tribes conquered (and still hold) every square inch between the Urals and the Irish west coast (not to mention North and South America). The US has this national psychological hang-up about admitting it is an imperialistic expansionist behemoth, but the treatment of the Asians who invaded North America first is nothing different than what any other conquering nation has done since the dawn of Man.
As to the "unfair" treatment of the Indians, the Aztecs were in Mexico because they got displaced out of, in turn, British Columbia (to use current geographic distinctions), Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Arizona and northern Mexico by other "indigenous" groups. The Gataka were kicked out of Kansas. The Tuscarora were booted all the way from North Carolina to New York. The Ojibwa and Algonquins continuously kicked each other out of various parts of Ontario. Since the Plains Indians were so nomadic, there was less displacement there, but God help the Crow who was caught on Lakota hunting grounds (or vice versa). The list goes on.
In other words, what the Europeans did to the Indians was nothing that the Indians hadn't been doing to each other for centuries. The difference was, there were far more Europeans (mostly of Teutonic derivation) and their technology was far superior. They could make it stick. When the US decided to build a new nation that would extend from coast to coast, the Indians were in the way and they were removed. All human history and precedent underscores that doing so was "legal". As to the morality of the genocide, well your questions was about "legal" not "moral" or "right or wrong" - which issues have no place in a discussion of conquest in any case. And before claiming that treaties were "broken" and lands were "stolen" be sure to read the treaty in question and then determine which side abrogated the terms first. One cannot claim the protection of a treaty if one is already in default.
2007-06-29 12:10:11
·
answer #1
·
answered by Oscar Himpflewitz 7
·
2⤊
3⤋
Sales and treaties did not fair better than violence. Treaties were designed to cheat and rob Native Americans, anyway. It just sounds proper and legal, but it was equally abusive.
2007-06-28 17:12:36
·
answer #2
·
answered by Letizia 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
native americans..whatever heritage or tribe they may be, were forced off the land and since the dollar was not their way of obtaining, they were conquered or forced off. many indians possible could not conform to what they attributed to "the white man's ways' and paid the price for it. mexicans had texas taken from them as well. so if we all accepted land then the indians would prosper better, and mexicans would have texas and thing would or might be a little better for all. just a thought.
2007-06-28 16:32:01
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I am familiar with the Cherokees, so I will address its relationship with the white man:
The Cherokees entered into six separate treaties with the U.S. government between 1777 and 1835. In each case, federal authorities sought to extend the frontiers of white settlement by extinguishing Indian title to land.
The United States had broken several promises, including President Andrew Jackson's unconscionable betrayal of Chief Junaluska and his Cherokees. The "great warrior and Chief" had saved General Jackson's life at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend and, subsequently, when "Old Hickory" was elected the 7th President he forced the Cherokees from their homeland. But, by the 1860s, the highlanders and Cherokees were neighbors and, moreover, friends. Cherokee intermarriage with neighboring whites was also more common. Furthermore, prior to his death, Yonaguska commanded his people to obey Chief Thomas. In 1883 Ziegler recorded that "before Yonaguska died he assembled his people and publicly willed the chieftainship to his clerk, friend and adopted son, W. H. Thomas, who he commended as worthy of respect and whom he adjured them to obey as they had obeyed him. He was going to the home provided for him by the [G]reat [S]pirit; he would always keep watch over his people and would be grieved to see any of them disobey the new chief he had chosen to rule over them." General Winfield Scott and the United States Army (enforcing Andrew Jackson's Indian removal policy) had eradicated the Cherokees during the removal termed Trail of Tears. The Indians vividly remembered Jackson's betrayal and the 4000 Cherokees that perished and, in the beginning of the American Civil War, General Scott was appointed General-in-Chief of the Union Army; he was also a veteran of the War of 1812, hero during the Mexican-American War, former presidential candidate, and during the Civil War is credited for his superb Anaconda Plan.
2007-06-28 18:01:30
·
answer #4
·
answered by . 6
·
0⤊
0⤋