(July 5, 2020 at 8:32 am)onlinebiker Wrote:

(July 5, 2020 at 7:49 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: All of which makes Trump’s public masturbation at Mt Rushmore all the more pathetic. That land STILL belongs to the Natives. Treaties, the US Constitution and the US Supreme Court all say so.

If they ever get it back, here’s hoping they blast that stupid fucking sculpture into oblivion.

Boru

There's no such thing as natives.

Except in the Rift Valley.


..

Everyone - everywhere - is an immigrant.


No exceptions.

Any claims or boasts otherwise are just conceit.

Shorthand for ‘Native Americans’. Try to deflect all you like, but the Black Hills - including Mt Rushmore - belong to various divisions of the Sioux tribes. This makes it a monumentally (no pun intended) inappropriate venue for Trump’s event.

Boru

(July 5, 2020 at 8:36 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(July 5, 2020 at 8:32 am)onlinebiker Wrote: There's no such thing as natives.

Except in the Rift Valley.


..

Everyone - everywhere - is an immigrant.


No exceptions.

Any claims or boasts otherwise are just conceit.

Shorthand for ‘Native Americans’. Try to deflect all you like, but the Black Hills - including Mt Rushmore - belong to various divisions of the Sioux tribes. This makes it a monumentally (no pun intended) inappropriate venue for Trump’s event.

Boru

The "Native Americans" (I was born here - that makes me one - right?) were well accustomed to the concept of losing land in a war. They did it with rival tribes all the time - in addition to enslaving the losers - or attempting genocide......

If they were OK with it - what's YOUR problem?

(July 5, 2020 at 8:47 am)onlinebiker Wrote:

(July 5, 2020 at 8:36 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Shorthand for ‘Native Americans’. Try to deflect all you like, but the Black Hills - including Mt Rushmore - belong to various divisions of the Sioux tribes. This makes it a monumentally (no pun intended) inappropriate venue for Trump’s event.

Boru

The "Native Americans" (I was born here - that makes me one - right?) were well accustomed to the concept of losing land in a war. They did it with rival tribes all the time - in addition to enslaving the losers - or attempting genocide......

If they were OK with it - what's YOUR problem?

They didn't 'lose' this land in a war.  It was taken from them in violation of a treaty. The tribes have been fighting in US courts for almost 100 years, so they CLEARLY aren't 'ok with it'.

I dislike to lecture you on your country's history, so maybe you should look up the Treaty of Fort Laramie and the Supreme Court decision that upheld the Sioux claim to the land.

Boru

I've always thought of myself as Australian since I was born and bred there. And I'm also 5th generation Aussie.

But I've always thought that the people who have lived on the land for thousands, if not tens of thousands of years before my ancestors arrived, have more rights to the land than more recent immigrants.

If nothing else, I believe that it's part of the newly arrived culture to help preserve and protect the cultures of the earlier inhabitants of the land if at all possible.

There are a few exceptions.

With C-19 still being an issue, even though some idiots still aren’t wearing masks, public firework celebrations were canceled. How in-American, right? Meh, thinks I, since there is no reason to celebrate the independence of this country given its current political climate.

(July 5, 2020 at 8:53 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(July 5, 2020 at 8:47 am)onlinebiker Wrote: The "Native Americans" (I was born here - that makes me one - right?) were well accustomed to the concept of losing land in a war. They did it with rival tribes all the time - in addition to enslaving the losers - or attempting genocide......

If they were OK with it - what's YOUR problem?

They didn't 'lose' this land in a war.  It was taken from them in violation of a treaty. The tribes have been fighting in US courts for almost 100 years, so they CLEARLY aren't 'ok with it'.

I dislike to lecture you on your country's history, so maybe you should look up the Treaty of Fort Laramie and the Supreme Court decision that upheld the Sioux claim to the land.

Boru

Yes. They lost a war. They conceeded that by signing that treaty. There were several in the US Government that thought killing all "natives" was the better idea. The treatl (which they never intended to honor) was a compromise.

If the Sioux didn't lose - why did they sign?

(July 5, 2020 at 9:15 am)onlinebiker Wrote:

(July 5, 2020 at 8:53 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: They didn't 'lose' this land in a war.  It was taken from them in violation of a treaty. The tribes have been fighting in US courts for almost 100 years, so they CLEARLY aren't 'ok with it'.

I dislike to lecture you on your country's history, so maybe you should look up the Treaty of Fort Laramie and the Supreme Court decision that upheld the Sioux claim to the land.

Boru

Yes. They lost a war. They conceeded that by signing that treaty. There were several in the US Government that thought killing all "natives" was the better idea. The treatl (which they never intended to honor) was a compromise.

If the Sioux didn't lose - why did they sign?

When did I say they didn’t lose the war? I said they didn’t lose the land IN a war - the Black Hills were ceded to them to end the war. When gold was discovered on the land, the US appropriated the land under false pretenses and in violation of both the treaty and the US Constitution.  Your own Supreme Court agreed with this assessment in 1980.

How can you not get this? The land belongs - legally, ethically and historically - to the Sioux nation, not to the US.

And in case your wondering why I’ve got such a bug up me arse about this, something similar happened to Ireland in the 12th century. But that’s a topic for another time.

Boru

(July 5, 2020 at 9:55 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(July 5, 2020 at 9:15 am)onlinebiker Wrote: Yes. They lost a war. They conceeded that by signing that treaty. There were several in the US Government that thought killing all "natives" was the better idea. The treatl (which they never intended to honor) was a compromise.

If the Sioux didn't lose - why did they sign?

When did I say they didn’t lose the war? I said they didn’t lose the land IN a war - the Black Hills were ceded to them to end the war. When gold was discovered on the land, the US appropriated the land under false pretenses and in violation of both the treaty and the US Constitution.  Your own Supreme Court agreed with this assessment in 1980.

How can you not get this? The land belongs - legally, ethically and historically - to the Sioux nation, not to the US.

And in case your wondering why I’ve got such a bug up me arse about this, something similar happened to Ireland in the 12th century. But that’s a topic for another time.

Boru

The neighbors cows got into my grandfather's cornfield and ruined his crop in 1943.

By your logic - the neighbors that live there now owe me for those spoiled crops..

(July 5, 2020 at 10:09 am)onlinebiker Wrote:

(July 5, 2020 at 9:55 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: When did I say they didn’t lose the war? I said they didn’t lose the land IN a war - the Black Hills were ceded to them to end the war. When gold was discovered on the land, the US appropriated the land under false pretenses and in violation of both the treaty and the US Constitution.  Your own Supreme Court agreed with this assessment in 1980.

How can you not get this? The land belongs - legally, ethically and historically - to the Sioux nation, not to the US.

And in case your wondering why I’ve got such a bug up me arse about this, something similar happened to Ireland in the 12th century. But that’s a topic for another time.

Boru

The neighbors cows got into my grandfather's cornfield and ruined his crop in 1943.

By your logic - the neighbors that live there now owe me for those spoiled crops..

A better analogy would be that your grandfather and his ancestors owned that farm for generations. People begin gradually encroaching on his farm - trespassing, stealing his corn, etc. To defend what is rightfully his, grandad decides on an armed response (a position I’m sure you’d feel comfortable with), and all the neighbours respond in kind.

This tit-for-tat drags on for several years until both sides get tired of it. They make a formal agreement that the farm will stay in your family in perpetuity and the neighbours will keep their mitts off it. 

Then oil (or gold or plantinum) is discovered on the farm, so the neighbours band together, tear up the agreement, and forcibly remove grandad from the farm.

You learn about all this and decide to go to law over it. The case drags on and on for so long that all the original parties to the agreement have died...BUT your case makes it all the way to the Supreme Court who decide that the land was illegally taken from your family and is yours by right.

Should the current occupiers be evicted and the property restored to you?

Boru

(July 4, 2020 at 5:23 am)The Valkyrie Wrote: Happy Treason Day to our American allies.

Hopefully your "president" doesn't embarrass you any more today.

I would suggest dissolving your government and turning back to the Brits but they have Boris.

So, Beccs for dictator for life!

Fun fact: the last time I talked about the Fourth of July to someone (I think it was my therapist), I said the only reason I'd be against having the British take back the US is because the current PM is too dumb to know how to use a capo:



... Well, that and their stance on cartoon porn, and their qualified right to silence, and the fact that somehow, I bet Brexit would have been worse if they had to deal with the American vote.