I’m sorry, I don’t understand your point. Why would you have been consulted hundreds of years ago?
The point is that you are benefitting now from it, at the expense of the native Americans, and your society and government has agreed via your elected representatives in the form of a mutually agreed upon treaty that X is a fair price for it.
In the long run, we’re talking about a democratic decision. So no, you weren’t personally consulted, but that argument applies to every law or treaty passed by your government. It’s not unanimous vote, it’s majority vote (to simplify it to a ridiculous extent).
The end result could only be speculated upon, in the theoretical scenario of Germans being taken over by Indians.
Perhaps the Germans would have been able to unify, and wipe out their invaders, before any theft of lands, or genocidal activity began.
I was just pointing out that -being the invaded, might be different then being the invaders, in terms of cultural and physical loss.
Immigrants often chose to come to this land, Native people, by contrast, did not choose to be over run.
My point is that I may be benefiting from things that my ancestors did centuries ago, but I didn’t do anything - I didn’t have any say in what they did, and I don’t feel any guilt for it.
So tell me, since I’m part native and part euro, which part of me is providing the benefit, and which part is that at the expense of? And exactly how does my left hand pay my right whatever it is that’s owed? You seem to be proposing a totally unworkable cost accounting scheme.
I’m not proposing anything at all. I’m describing the situation as it currently is; I wouldn’t be so bold as to propose a change in another country’s treaty agreements. I’m merely describing the logic typically behind treaty obligations and reparations, and I know nothing about you personally and have no idea at all what “part euro” even means - “euro” isn’t a nationality I’ve ever come across, in whole or part. Are you saying you’re not American? That you have citizenship in a European country? In that case, none of this applies to you, surely?
You shouldn’t feel guilty. However let’s say you live in a rented house, and the lease agreement states that the lease can be taken over by your kids. The house owner dies, his kids take over owning the building. You pass on, and your kids take over the lease.
Should they pay rent? That’s what the treaties are, rent for the lands Canada and the US rest upon.
Just short for part European ancestry, like the majority of Americans. It seemed rather pointless to list a specific nationality, since there are at least 6 of those.
You’re mixing up “ancestry” with “nationality”. Or, more importantly, nation states with individuals. Nationality is what’s applicable to this situation. One nation has a treaty with another. You don’t personally have a treaty with anything, the United States of America does. This applies to all treaties into which your nation enters.
Just to make sure everyone’s aware, the first 84 posts in this thread are from November and December 2000. If you respond to one of those posts, there’s a good chance the poster is no longer here to respond.
Try New Zealand. Settlement of Maori claims have been underway for 20 years now and involve large areas of land plus cash and business interests. Canada is also going down the same path and Australia is a distant third but it is happening.
Looming over all these modern efforts to right historical wrongs, is the creation of the state of Israel which stands head and shoulders as the prime example of reparation.
