Can you be a native of America/United States of America if you are not Native American?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but Native Americans aren’t native to the Americas, either. They came from Asia. No hominid species is native to the New World.

They were merely the first modern humans to live in the Americas. But they’re not native to here. No human is. We are all an introduced species.


Science is real.

How do we know they did not displace some other, truly native, American group?

Because the current fossil record, and known DNA, do not support that.

Hominids evolved in Africa, and spread to the rest of the world from there. There was no parallel evolution occurring on different continents. Africa is the ONLY place on earth where modern humans are actually native to.

Actually you cannot prove a negative.

Who knows, perhaps next year some new finding will prove that some other dudes were here before so-called NAs.

Parallel evolution of another sapient species in the Americas would be one of the greatest discoveries in human history. That would be mind-blowing, to say the least.

While all hominids originated in Africa, the Clovis people are the currently accepted first hominids in the Americas but there is some evidence that other people were here long before them.

Science is real, and science supports a human presence predating Clovis people’s’ presence in the Americas.

Which still doesn't mean that their descendants are owed the Western Hemisphere...

You can start by either moving non-tribal members off any land within current treaty borders or paying rent (US or state government can pay the rent instead of the private landowner, that's fine). Here is the map showing the treaty lands:

For those of you who don't think you are living on "stolen land" -- the treaties, ratified by the Senate and signed by the President, typically establish fixed borders for a “permanent home for the _____ nation of Indians” and say that the United States grants title "to the ____ nation of Indians for the land” to continue “so long as they shall exist as a nation" and "“no portion of the lands will ever be embraced or included within, or annexed to, any Territory or State."

Only both parties to a treaty can renegotiate a treaty.


(1) Once a federal reservation is established, only Congress can diminish or disestablish it. Doing so requires a clear expression of con- gressional intent. Pp. 6–8.

Unless I'm reading that map incorrectly, what you're proposing would result in the potential displacement of tens of millions of Americans, or requiring the loss of property rights for those people.

If you think that's anywhere near the realm of realm of reality, you're delusional.

Yes because that it literally what the people who took the land from the tribes did

They displaced them and deprived them of their property rights

With the last 100-150 years

And the people on the land now still benefit from that, no one along the way has compensated the tribes for the loss

Americans who own that land now aren't giving it up without violence. I certainly wouldn't.

Again, you're delusional if you think this is some sort of realistic goal.

It's not going to be violence, this would be litigated through the courts and pursued through new legislative remedies (e.g., payments for treaty violations). Are you saying you would contact your legislators and tell them to vote against the tribes' pursuit of their treaty rights?

If the courts take half the country away, the courts will lose their legitimacy and authority and will be ignored. Courts are only respected as long as they are respected.

The self-owns in this thread are amazing. The Supreme Court ruled in the 1830s that only the federal government could pass laws dealing with native tribes as they are separate governments, not the states. Georgia ignored the Supreme Court decision and the President--Andrew Jackson--allowed it, and letting states treat tribes within their borders how they want has basically been the policy ever since (at least until the recent McGirt decision, which so far only applies in OK).

What I think you meant to say is "courts are only respected if they make decisions that the majority white population supports."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but Native Americans aren’t native to the Americas, either. They came from Asia. No hominid species is native to the New World.

They were merely the first modern humans to live in the Americas. But they’re not native to here. No human is. We are all an introduced species.


Science is real.

How do we know they did not displace some other, truly native, American group?

Because the current fossil record, and known DNA, do not support that.

Hominids evolved in Africa, and spread to the rest of the world from there. There was no parallel evolution occurring on different continents. Africa is the ONLY place on earth where modern humans are actually native to.

Actually you cannot prove a negative.

Who knows, perhaps next year some new finding will prove that some other dudes were here before so-called NAs.

Parallel evolution of another sapient species in the Americas would be one of the greatest discoveries in human history. That would be mind-blowing, to say the least.

While all hominids originated in Africa, the Clovis people are the currently accepted first hominids in the Americas but there is some evidence that other people were here long before them.

Science is real, and science supports a human presence predating Clovis people’s’ presence in the Americas.

Which still doesn't mean that their descendants are owed the Western Hemisphere...

You can start by either moving non-tribal members off any land within current treaty borders or paying rent (US or state government can pay the rent instead of the private landowner, that's fine). Here is the map showing the treaty lands:

For those of you who don't think you are living on "stolen land" -- the treaties, ratified by the Senate and signed by the President, typically establish fixed borders for a “permanent home for the _____ nation of Indians” and say that the United States grants title "to the ____ nation of Indians for the land” to continue “so long as they shall exist as a nation" and "“no portion of the lands will ever be embraced or included within, or annexed to, any Territory or State."

Only both parties to a treaty can renegotiate a treaty.


(1) Once a federal reservation is established, only Congress can diminish or disestablish it. Doing so requires a clear expression of con- gressional intent. Pp. 6–8.

Unless I'm reading that map incorrectly, what you're proposing would result in the potential displacement of tens of millions of Americans, or requiring the loss of property rights for those people.

If you think that's anywhere near the realm of realm of reality, you're delusional.

Yes because that it literally what the people who took the land from the tribes did

They displaced them and deprived them of their property rights

With the last 100-150 years

And the people on the land now still benefit from that, no one along the way has compensated the tribes for the loss

Americans who own that land now aren't giving it up without violence. I certainly wouldn't.

Again, you're delusional if you think this is some sort of realistic goal.

It's not going to be violence, this would be litigated through the courts and pursued through new legislative remedies (e.g., payments for treaty violations). Are you saying you would contact your legislators and tell them to vote against the tribes' pursuit of their treaty rights?

If the US government violated treaty rights, then the US government should pay damages to the respective tribes. But, if the courts tried to take property from its current private owners, I would certainly support overturning that decisions. I can certainly see the Federal government having to give its land back to the tribes. But private landowners? absolutely not.

It should be noted that the courts haven't shown any real desire to seize land from private owners to give to tribes. The recent decision regarding Oklahoma was about criminal jurisdiction, not ownership of property.

Well people don't want to have their child abused and then have to pursue charges in a "tribal court" they aren't familiar with because the perpetrator is a certain race/ethnicity. I also doubt people want all the national parks, oil reserves, etc turned over to tribes. This is something that is going to get shot down once it catches more attention for what's happening in Oklahoma.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but Native Americans aren’t native to the Americas, either. They came from Asia. No hominid species is native to the New World.

They were merely the first modern humans to live in the Americas. But they’re not native to here. No human is. We are all an introduced species.


Science is real.

How do we know they did not displace some other, truly native, American group?

Because the current fossil record, and known DNA, do not support that.

Hominids evolved in Africa, and spread to the rest of the world from there. There was no parallel evolution occurring on different continents. Africa is the ONLY place on earth where modern humans are actually native to.

Actually you cannot prove a negative.

Who knows, perhaps next year some new finding will prove that some other dudes were here before so-called NAs.

Parallel evolution of another sapient species in the Americas would be one of the greatest discoveries in human history. That would be mind-blowing, to say the least.

While all hominids originated in Africa, the Clovis people are the currently accepted first hominids in the Americas but there is some evidence that other people were here long before them.

Science is real, and science supports a human presence predating Clovis people’s’ presence in the Americas.

Which still doesn't mean that their descendants are owed the Western Hemisphere...

You can start by either moving non-tribal members off any land within current treaty borders or paying rent (US or state government can pay the rent instead of the private landowner, that's fine). Here is the map showing the treaty lands:

For those of you who don't think you are living on "stolen land" -- the treaties, ratified by the Senate and signed by the President, typically establish fixed borders for a “permanent home for the _____ nation of Indians” and say that the United States grants title "to the ____ nation of Indians for the land” to continue “so long as they shall exist as a nation" and "“no portion of the lands will ever be embraced or included within, or annexed to, any Territory or State."

Only both parties to a treaty can renegotiate a treaty.


(1) Once a federal reservation is established, only Congress can diminish or disestablish it. Doing so requires a clear expression of con- gressional intent. Pp. 6–8.

Unless I'm reading that map incorrectly, what you're proposing would result in the potential displacement of tens of millions of Americans, or requiring the loss of property rights for those people.

If you think that's anywhere near the realm of realm of reality, you're delusional.

Yes because that it literally what the people who took the land from the tribes did

They displaced them and deprived them of their property rights

With the last 100-150 years

And the people on the land now still benefit from that, no one along the way has compensated the tribes for the loss

Americans who own that land now aren't giving it up without violence. I certainly wouldn't.

Again, you're delusional if you think this is some sort of realistic goal.

It's not going to be violence, this would be litigated through the courts and pursued through new legislative remedies (e.g., payments for treaty violations). Are you saying you would contact your legislators and tell them to vote against the tribes' pursuit of their treaty rights?

If the courts take half the country away, the courts will lose their legitimacy and authority and will be ignored. Courts are only respected as long as they are respected.

The self-owns in this thread are amazing. The Supreme Court ruled in the 1830s that only the federal government could pass laws dealing with native tribes as they are separate governments, not the states. Georgia ignored the Supreme Court decision and the President--Andrew Jackson--allowed it, and letting states treat tribes within their borders how they want has basically been the policy ever since (at least until the recent McGirt decision, which so far only applies in OK).

What I think you meant to say is "courts are only respected if they make decisions that the majority white population supports."

It's not "the majority white population majority". It's the country, it's Americans.

"Self-own"? You're not cute, sorry.

[Anonymous]

Does this mean I can get reparations from England as a person of Scottish ancestry? Can I get my family land back?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but Native Americans aren’t native to the Americas, either. They came from Asia. No hominid species is native to the New World.

They were merely the first modern humans to live in the Americas. But they’re not native to here. No human is. We are all an introduced species.


Science is real.

How do we know they did not displace some other, truly native, American group?

Because the current fossil record, and known DNA, do not support that.

Hominids evolved in Africa, and spread to the rest of the world from there. There was no parallel evolution occurring on different continents. Africa is the ONLY place on earth where modern humans are actually native to.

Actually you cannot prove a negative.

Who knows, perhaps next year some new finding will prove that some other dudes were here before so-called NAs.

Parallel evolution of another sapient species in the Americas would be one of the greatest discoveries in human history. That would be mind-blowing, to say the least.

While all hominids originated in Africa, the Clovis people are the currently accepted first hominids in the Americas but there is some evidence that other people were here long before them.

Science is real, and science supports a human presence predating Clovis people’s’ presence in the Americas.

Which still doesn't mean that their descendants are owed the Western Hemisphere...

You can start by either moving non-tribal members off any land within current treaty borders or paying rent (US or state government can pay the rent instead of the private landowner, that's fine). Here is the map showing the treaty lands:

For those of you who don't think you are living on "stolen land" -- the treaties, ratified by the Senate and signed by the President, typically establish fixed borders for a “permanent home for the _____ nation of Indians” and say that the United States grants title "to the ____ nation of Indians for the land” to continue “so long as they shall exist as a nation" and "“no portion of the lands will ever be embraced or included within, or annexed to, any Territory or State."

Only both parties to a treaty can renegotiate a treaty.


(1) Once a federal reservation is established, only Congress can diminish or disestablish it. Doing so requires a clear expression of con- gressional intent. Pp. 6–8.

Unless I'm reading that map incorrectly, what you're proposing would result in the potential displacement of tens of millions of Americans, or requiring the loss of property rights for those people.

If you think that's anywhere near the realm of realm of reality, you're delusional.

Yes because that it literally what the people who took the land from the tribes did

They displaced them and deprived them of their property rights

With the last 100-150 years

And the people on the land now still benefit from that, no one along the way has compensated the tribes for the loss

Americans who own that land now aren't giving it up without violence. I certainly wouldn't.

Again, you're delusional if you think this is some sort of realistic goal.

It's not going to be violence, this would be litigated through the courts and pursued through new legislative remedies (e.g., payments for treaty violations). Are you saying you would contact your legislators and tell them to vote against the tribes' pursuit of their treaty rights?

If the US government violated treaty rights, then the US government should pay damages to the respective tribes. But, if the courts tried to take property from its current private owners, I would certainly support overturning that decisions. I can certainly see the Federal government having to give its land back to the tribes. But private landowners? absolutely not.

It should be noted that the courts haven't shown any real desire to seize land from private owners to give to tribes. The recent decision regarding Oklahoma was about criminal jurisdiction, not ownership of property.

Well people don't want to have their child abused and then have to pursue charges in a "tribal court" they aren't familiar with because the perpetrator is a certain race/ethnicity. I also doubt people want all the national parks, oil reserves, etc turned over to tribes. This is something that is going to get shot down once it catches more attention for what's happening in Oklahoma.

Thought this was a nation of laws

[Anonymous]

To the people illegally living on occupied lands, you just have to return to your own lands, which are not part of the so-called United States.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but Native Americans aren’t native to the Americas, either. They came from Asia. No hominid species is native to the New World.

They were merely the first modern humans to live in the Americas. But they’re not native to here. No human is. We are all an introduced species.


Science is real.

How do we know they did not displace some other, truly native, American group?

Because the current fossil record, and known DNA, do not support that.

Hominids evolved in Africa, and spread to the rest of the world from there. There was no parallel evolution occurring on different continents. Africa is the ONLY place on earth where modern humans are actually native to.

Actually you cannot prove a negative.

Who knows, perhaps next year some new finding will prove that some other dudes were here before so-called NAs.

Parallel evolution of another sapient species in the Americas would be one of the greatest discoveries in human history. That would be mind-blowing, to say the least.

While all hominids originated in Africa, the Clovis people are the currently accepted first hominids in the Americas but there is some evidence that other people were here long before them.

Science is real, and science supports a human presence predating Clovis people’s’ presence in the Americas.

Which still doesn't mean that their descendants are owed the Western Hemisphere...

You can start by either moving non-tribal members off any land within current treaty borders or paying rent (US or state government can pay the rent instead of the private landowner, that's fine). Here is the map showing the treaty lands:

For those of you who don't think you are living on "stolen land" -- the treaties, ratified by the Senate and signed by the President, typically establish fixed borders for a “permanent home for the _____ nation of Indians” and say that the United States grants title "to the ____ nation of Indians for the land” to continue “so long as they shall exist as a nation" and "“no portion of the lands will ever be embraced or included within, or annexed to, any Territory or State."

Only both parties to a treaty can renegotiate a treaty.


(1) Once a federal reservation is established, only Congress can diminish or disestablish it. Doing so requires a clear expression of con- gressional intent. Pp. 6–8.

Unless I'm reading that map incorrectly, what you're proposing would result in the potential displacement of tens of millions of Americans, or requiring the loss of property rights for those people.

If you think that's anywhere near the realm of realm of reality, you're delusional.

Yes because that it literally what the people who took the land from the tribes did

They displaced them and deprived them of their property rights

With the last 100-150 years

And the people on the land now still benefit from that, no one along the way has compensated the tribes for the loss

Americans who own that land now aren't giving it up without violence. I certainly wouldn't.

Again, you're delusional if you think this is some sort of realistic goal.

It's not going to be violence, this would be litigated through the courts and pursued through new legislative remedies (e.g., payments for treaty violations). Are you saying you would contact your legislators and tell them to vote against the tribes' pursuit of their treaty rights?

If the US government violated treaty rights, then the US government should pay damages to the respective tribes. But, if the courts tried to take property from its current private owners, I would certainly support overturning that decisions. I can certainly see the Federal government having to give its land back to the tribes. But private landowners? absolutely not.

It should be noted that the courts haven't shown any real desire to seize land from private owners to give to tribes. The recent decision regarding Oklahoma was about criminal jurisdiction, not ownership of property.

Well people don't want to have their child abused and then have to pursue charges in a "tribal court" they aren't familiar with because the perpetrator is a certain race/ethnicity. I also doubt people want all the national parks, oil reserves, etc turned over to tribes. This is something that is going to get shot down once it catches more attention for what's happening in Oklahoma.

Yeah, the Oklahoma ruling has seemed to create more problems than it caused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the people illegally living on occupied lands, you just have to return to your own lands, which are not part of the so-called United States.

We're not going anywhere. I bought my property legally from its previous owner. You're welcome to make an offer to buy it, if you want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the people illegally living on occupied lands, you just have to return to your own lands, which are not part of the so-called United States.

We're not going anywhere. I bought my property legally from its previous owner. You're welcome to make an offer to buy it, if you want.

Whites have their own homeland; they can and should return there, and give back the land they stole.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1089330.page

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the people illegally living on occupied lands, you just have to return to your own lands, which are not part of the so-called United States.

We're not going anywhere. I bought my property legally from its previous owner. You're welcome to make an offer to buy it, if you want.

Whites have their own homeland; they can and should return there, and give back the land they stole.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1089330.page

How about, no. Now what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the people illegally living on occupied lands, you just have to return to your own lands, which are not part of the so-called United States.

We're not going anywhere. I bought my property legally from its previous owner. You're welcome to make an offer to buy it, if you want.

Maybe you feel that way. But through the schools, we will train your children to see the truth. Eventually we will persuade them of the justice in land back, and they’ll do what they must to atone for past wrongs.

Correcting the holiday to Indigenous Peoples Day is a small start.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the people illegally living on occupied lands, you just have to return to your own lands, which are not part of the so-called United States.

We're not going anywhere. I bought my property legally from its previous owner. You're welcome to make an offer to buy it, if you want.

Maybe you feel that way. But through the schools, we will train your children to see the truth. Eventually we will persuade them of the justice in land back, and they’ll do what they must to atone for past wrongs.

Correcting the holiday to Indigenous Peoples Day is a small start.

When those kids grow up and buy their first home they will feel differently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the people illegally living on occupied lands, you just have to return to your own lands, which are not part of the so-called United States.

We're not going anywhere. I bought my property legally from its previous owner. You're welcome to make an offer to buy it, if you want.

But what if it is not the responsibility of the current individual property owners, but of the country as a whole to make things right in terms of compensation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the people illegally living on occupied lands, you just have to return to your own lands, which are not part of the so-called United States.

We're not going anywhere. I bought my property legally from its previous owner. You're welcome to make an offer to buy it, if you want.

But what if it is not the responsibility of the current individual property owners, but of the country as a whole to make things right in terms of compensation?

Ask Gorsuch. He knows the answers to all of these questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the people illegally living on occupied lands, you just have to return to your own lands, which are not part of the so-called United States.

We're not going anywhere. I bought my property legally from its previous owner. You're welcome to make an offer to buy it, if you want.

Maybe you feel that way. But through the schools, we will train your children to see the truth. Eventually we will persuade them of the justice in land back, and they’ll do what they must to atone for past wrongs.

Correcting the holiday to Indigenous Peoples Day is a small start.

You're adorable in how naive you are.