It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by slackerwire
TruthSeeka-
Inhabitation does not equal ownership. When you claim these lands were "stolen" that implies that the indians owned this land. Unless you can prove otherwise, you are merely assigning wrongful ownership.
That is how Nations gain power, that is how it has been done for thousands of years. The meet new people, with new lands and they conquer them, taking their land.
Originally posted by xmotex
That is how Nations gain power, that is how it has been done for thousands of years. The meet new people, with new lands and they conquer them, taking their land.
So then, if say Mexico & China take over the US, kill everyone here, and repopulate it with their own people, you have no problem with it, because "That is how Nations gain power".
Good to know.
Originally posted by intrepid
OK, so who "owned" the land before white man came along?
Secondly, who "owns" it now? And why?
Originally posted by Kr0n0s
Never said i had no problem with it, i just spoke the truth. The only thing keeping them from doing what you say is because they know they would lose.
I swear, the ignorance on this board is intolerable sometimes, go back to school already
Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
you are right, ignorance on the board is nearly intolerable ... especially the racism and discrimination.
Originally posted by slackerwire
Considering a large number of tribes did not believe in the idea of land ownership, no one owned it at that point.
To give an example of my previous statement, if you purchased an empty piece of land as an investment, would ownership therefore transfer to me if I pitched a tent on said land? No. Inhabitation does not equal ownership.
Originally posted by newyorkee
As far as our courts are concerned our government owns the land, the "responsible" men who own the country. We rent space to park our cars on public streets. We pay taxes for anything we own. We in effect dont own a single crumb of soil. Our government "owns" the land now intrepid, Uncle sam.
Originally posted by slackerwire
To give an example of my previous statement, if you purchased an empty piece of land as an investment, would ownership therefore transfer to me if I pitched a tent on said land? No. Inhabitation does not equal ownership.
Originally posted by intrepid
Funny how they fought over it so much if they didn't have ownership in it. But I'm open to hearing more about this if you can find some info on it.
That makes no sense at all. They didn't purchase anything, they cultivated the land.
And to my last question please, who owns the land now?