Indians Have No True Title to the Land

Posted on January 19, 2011. Filed under: Americas, Humanitarian Issues |


(speaking about Mount Rushmore)Though my research into the actions and minds of Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln gave fruit for some of my last writings posted,
I never really searched for any information on the last one, Roosevelt.  I was too ashamed and blown away with THAT information and could not stomach any more at the time.
That was in 2006.  Tonight, I went for it.  All I had to do was to type:
“Theodore Roosevelt and the Indian”
into my trusted search engine to find THE VERY FIRST result (below)…  Once again, I sit here shaking my head in disgust, but
I really understand their attitudes as well.  Bold, ignorant of their ‘enemy”s ways, and just plain ‘SAVAGE’ in their thinking, they
knew no better.  They had arrived on Land which they WANTED, and saw it as THEIRS upon arrival, because in their minds,
it was EMPTY and going to WASTE.
I am unearthing more and more reasons why the people of North America feel the way they do about ‘Indians’…
They had (and sadly, still do have) good teachers, like this one below…
P.S. ‘Not having any title to the Land’ is also a very practical ‘Decree’ that the ‘church’ made up in 1863, saying the Indians did not hold
‘title’ to the Land…  Want to know why?  Because the inhabitants were not Christians at the time the Christians (settlers, murderers, thugs) got there.
According to the ‘papal infallability’ of the day, so-called Christians had the ‘moral’ right to ‘conquest’… of any land that they saw first, and it was THEIRS.
The inhabitants thereof were suddenly…  ‘insects to be squashed as fast as possible’ (Titanic)  or ‘the retched. excecrable race’…
For all you sceptics, all you have to do is google a few words like ‘canada”s treatment of Indians, or ‘The Superior Race’ or ‘Terra Nullius’, or other.

Indians Have No True Title to the Land

Such a man, though both honest and intelligent, when he hears that me whites have settled on Indian lands, cannot realize that the act has no resemblance whatever to the forcible occupation of land already cultivated. The white settler has merely moved into an uninhabited waste; he does not feel that he is committing a wrong, for he knows perfectly well that the land is really owned by no one. It is never even visited, except perhaps for a week or two every year, and then the visitors are likely at any moment to be driven off by a rival hunting-party of greater strength. The settler ousts no one from the land; if he did not chop down the trees, hew out the logs for a building, and clear the ground for tillage, no one else would do so. He drives out the game, however, and of course the Indians who live thereon sink their mutual animosities and turn against the intruder. The truth is, the Indians never had any real title to the soil; they had not half as good a claim to it, for instance, as the cattlemen now have to all eastern Montana, yet no one would assert that the cattlemen have a right to keep immigrants off their vast unfenced ranges. The settler and pioneer have at bottom had justice on their side; this great continent could not have been kept as nothing but a game preserve for squalid savages. Moreover, to the most oppressed Indian nations the whites often acted as a protection, or, at least, they deferred instead of hastening their fate. But for the interposition of the whites it is probable that the Iroquois would have exterminated every Algonquin tribe before the end of the eighteenth century; exactly as in recent time the Crows and Pawnees would have been destroyed by the Sioux, had it not been for the wars we have waged against the latter.


Again, the loose governmental system of the Indians made it as difficult to secure a permanent peace with them as it was to negotiate the purchase of the lands. The sachem, or hereditary peace chief, and the elective war chief, who wielded only the influence that he could secure by his personal prowess and his tact, were equally unable to control all of their tribesmen, and were powerless with their confederated nations. If peace was made with the Shawnees, the war was continued by the Miamis; if peace was made with the latter, nevertheless perhaps one small band was dissatisfied, and continued the contest on its own account; and even if all the recognized bands were dealt with, the parties of renegades or outlaws had to be considered; and in the last resort the full recognition accorded by the Indians to the right of private warfare, made it possible for any individual warrior who possessed any influence to go on raiding and murdering unchecked. Every tribe, every sub-tribe, every band of a dozen souls ruled over by a petty chief, almost every individual warrior of the least importance, had to be met and pacified. Even if peace were declared, the Indians could not exist long without breaking it. There was to them no temptation to trespass on the white man’s ground for the purpose of settling; but every young brave was brought up to regard scalps taken and horses stolen, in war or peace, as the highest proofs and tokens of skill and courage, the sure means of attaining glory and hone the admiration of men and the love of women. Where the young men thought thus, and the chiefs had so little real control, it was inevitable that there would be many unprovoked forays for scalps, slaves, and horses made upon the white borderers.


Advertisements

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: