I would disagree. It is hard to be an illegal immigrant in places that had no formal government.
Are the things that the Europeans did brutal and oppressive? Certainly.
Was it anything I presently feel any need to feel sorry over? Nope.
That said,
The first humans who learned to work stone pushed out those having no such advanced weaponry.
The first humans who learned to work bronze kicked the snot out of the stone-users.
The first humans who learned iron working conquored the bronze using civilizations.
The first people who learned steel kicked the crap out of the poor sods using cast or wrought iron.
The Mongols, having invented the stirrup, kicked the crap out of the nomads that didn't have them.
Tribal warfare in North America had larger tribes pushing out smaller ones from hunting grounds long before any Europeans showed up.
The first Incas conquored neighboring tribes and took over areas as the just as the Mayans did.
Sorting out all of this to find whose claim to any given piece of dirt is further complicated by the fact that populations of conquorers and conquored tend to intermix.
I find the whole "go back to where you came from" schtick silly, over-simplified and a tad naive.
If the shoe were on the other foot, and the human-sacrificing civilizations in the Americas had built ships to occupy England, would they have been all that kind to the Angles and Saxons they found there?
Put an Incan army in Normandy or Bretagne in the 1200's, and would they have been benevolent rulers of the Normans and Celts?
well if you are going to make this your argument then you would have to refer to the treaty of guadalupe-hidalgo and then in that case you would actually be wrong.
As if the (Aztecs) OR the Inca were benevolent to their own.
"Out with the opressive conquistadors, in with the human-sacrificing priest/god/kings!"
???
Man, if that isn't irony, I don't know what is.
Maybe some of these protestors could go back in time and protest one Aztec city's army after it captured another city.
"Down with...(tearing sound followed by wet gurgle and a thud)"
Shortest protest... ever.
Did you mean the Aztec? Besides, I they have God's that are more cool.
Here is one of their structures:
The sleep-crystal of death in the pyramid. Erik Von Daniken thinks the aliens helped the ancient Egyptians and Aztecs build the pyramids. What do you think, Wild Cobra?
Were they smart enough to do it on their own?
I hold no particular hypothesis above others as more believable. The evidence suggests to me there either are real deities (yes plural) that have guided mankind, a more advanced society that lived on earth through some catastrophe in small numbers, visits by extraterrestrials who played with our DNA, or simply some genius minds through time who played the roll of God.
I tend to like best the notion that some people extract from Sumerian ancient text. Passing by aliens lived here for a time and acted as God's. They enslaved some of the population of the earth, maybe extracting raw materials for repair or fuel to their space crafts. Needing a better slave, they modified our DNA, hence, the missing link.
As for the Gods as we know dogma...
Doesn't it seem as though someone was playing games, and Earth is the game board?
Trippy, man. Where'd you read all that?
Spanish Mexico has no more right to North America than English United States or French Canada...
Now, if the Aztec/Mayan/Incan/Cherokee/etc nation wants to about Andy Jackson, be my guest. Guy wasn't that far off from Stalin.
Silent Invasion.
Anyone who says "you stole our land" is a complete wit. That's right, I said it, wit.
legally or morally? because these are 2 completely different perspectives.
I don't recall, but the hypothesis isn't any more trippy than other possibilities of our existence and myths. I do believe in evolution, but I also believe a deity or higher intelligence has guided evolution through time.
finally.
if i knew how to embed i would have done that a long time ago.
haha so true of the view of immigrants...
Awesome ...F******* Amatuers.
This goes back to the saying about mans knowledge over the centuries...that that which is not easily explained is deemed mystical or magic.
Aboriginals of Australia thinking a mirror is 'magic' ....etc...etc...
He's been watching Ancients Aliens on the Histroy channel.They are doing a series on the possibility that ETs have visited and shaped the course of human history. They are discussing all sorts of things from the crop circles, Egyptian pyramids, Indian drawings and their tales of flying craft, Easter island to the Mayans, Nasca lines and the surrounding areas. Frankly it is quite interesting but also speculative. Nothing concrete in the sense of hard evidence, ie...spacecraft, objects containing metals not existing on Earth or skeleton remains, but the situation would lead people to think that this planet has been visited from time to time in the past. Fasinating and thought provoking IMHO.
Generally when land changes governments, legality goes out the window. The only people with a legit claim to the land is the Native Americans. Everyone else, be it Mexicans, Canadians, or United Statesians, whoever is occupying the land now is the owner of said land.
US is the owner of California. Period. It wasn't stolen any more than any other part of North America. Certainly not from Mexico.
Reminds me of:He's been watching Ancients Aliens on the Histroy channel.
your first sentence simply begs the question. if a treaty guarantees rightful ownership to land, then anyone who violates the terms of that treaty commits theft. land was stolen and murders were even committed throughout much of the southwest during the 1800's and early 1900's. the treaty of guadalupe-hidalgo guaranteed spanish land grants to be legitmate claims to territory. but certain unethical judges and their henchmen often disguised as the law (see texas rangers) were willing to justify squatting and even murder in spite of the legal rights mexican and tejano landowners had to property.
I mean, if you want to claim some kind of 1800's international law... I don't know the concept was there yet.
I am not saying conquering is any better than theft. But stealing stolen land doesn't put the original thieves on a moral or legal high ground...
An example of "Give me back what I have rightfully stolen." Arguing after the fact seems silly. IMHO the only people with a claim to the land are the aboriginal people of that land. They got to steal it from the mastodons and sabretoothed tigers...
Even in current law, if you BUY a stolen item legitimately, it still belongs to the original owner, and when discovered stolen, must be returned.
how does the treaty of guadalupe hidalgo entail international law ? the treaty contained provisions promising to protect the civil rights and property of the more than one hundred thousand Mexicans who lived in the conquered territories. this has nothing to do with international boundaries.
arguing morally that no one has the right to any land here other than mexicans does not do anything to diminish the legal merit of the land grants.
but if you wish to be so relative about rights to land, or equate a legal right to a moral one, then your next assertion should actually be that there really can not be any laws against illegal immigration since essentially everyone here is an illegal except for the native americans.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
