• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Trump: US to demand a consulate in Tibet

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
you're both not on my friend list, you can argue over who most deserves that status

We'll arm wrestle for the title! I'm a brave
man. I'm not even the least intimidated by
@Audie's nearly five ferocious feet of dominating
height. Though I do consider myself the underdog.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
We'll arm wrestle for the title! I'm a brave
man. I'm not even the least intimidated by
@Audie's nearly five ferocious feet of dominating
height. Though I do consider myself the underdog.
I already win. They finds me so odious they can't ever even address me directly, as in the commie post.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Alaska was sold to America by the Russia. That one doesn't fit the regular means of acquisition for America.

Neither does the Gadsden Purchase, yet how the land was 'officially' acquired has almost no relevance to the claims of Native Americans to own it. Basically, buying the tract from Mexico was merely the prelude and excuse for stealing it from the 'natives'.

I guess you could argue that a few peoples who still exist today could not possibly have stolen their land from some other people. South Pacific islanders would be obvious candidates. But who else?

Go anywhere in North America, and the tribes were always in motion. They were always moving into someone else's land or being forced out of their own. Most likely, the same is true of the Australian Aborigine bands. Where would you go that you could be certain the people owning the land today are the original inhabitants?
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Go anywhere in North America, and the tribes were always in motion. They were always moving into someone else's land or being forced out of their own.
They were moving freely because they had no concept of private ownership of land. They didn't think the land was taken from them, it was taken from everyone. Ownership (of land) is theft.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
They were moving freely because they had no concept of private ownership of land. They didn't think the land was taken from them, it was taken from everyone. Ownership (of land) is theft.

Freely within the area they defended, as long as free m
eans always armed and alert.

They sure knew what territory they claimed for their use.
Weaker groups were forced onto marginal land or worse.
 
Last edited:

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Neither does the Gadsden Purchase, yet how the land was 'officially' acquired has almost no relevance to the claims of Native Americans to own it. Basically, buying the tract from Mexico was merely the prelude and excuse for stealing it from the 'natives'.

I guess you could argue that a few peoples who still exist today could not possibly have stolen their land from some other people. South Pacific islanders would be obvious candidates. But who else?

Go anywhere in North America, and the tribes were always in motion. They were always moving into someone else's land or being forced out of their own. Most likely, the same is true of the Australian Aborigine bands. Where would you go that you could be certain the people owning the land today are the original inhabitants?
True, but Uncle Sam acquired most of America through blood and shady deals. The sell of Alaska was more of a Russian oversight.
 
Top