Harry wrote: > >> Simply landless people trying to find free land to live on. > > > >The land was already inhabited. That's why you forced the survivors into > >reservations. > > Royalty gave Pennsylvania to Penn. Now it was occupied, others had to pay to > settle. OK?
Now it was occupied? Above, you wrote "people trying to find FREE land". Anyway, it was already occupied BEFORE "Royalty gave Pennsylvania to Penn". Don't you care what royalty did with those who occupied it before? Considering what you as a Georgist wrote against privilege, it is surprising that you defend royalty's crimes. > Now it was occupied, others had to pay to settle. OK? Paying for stolen property is fencing -- also a crime. > Perhaps, rather like Penn, the Indians unfairly occupied too much land > considering their numbers. Oh, now I understand. If thieves enter a large home and kill the only person who lived in it, then that makes the murder and theft of the home okay. Because the person took up too much space. > You should understand that no matter the apparent > cause of war, it seems that all wars are fought ultimately over land. The > North American conflicts were no different. If there was sooo much "surplus" space, then why did you kill 98 million? > >You took their best lands and paved over their cemeteries for supermarkets > >and parking lots. > > I wasn't here in the 18th and 19th century. If I had been I would be sure to > build lots of supermarkets and parking lots. Yep, that's the problem. > Why should millions of Indians pay with their life just because some Brits > and Irish can't shake off their top Predators? > > Guess it was just the luck of the draw. Have the Swiss given back all the > Nazi deposits to the Jews? What does this have to do with my question? Your comparison is inappropriate because the Swiss didn't kill a single Jew in the Holocaust -- on the contrary, we saved many more than America did (on a per-capita basis), including our own, unlike most European countries. > >> Things happened that were not pretty, but we can look back smugly from > >> our comfortable armchairs and "tut-tut" with the clear perception of > >> hindsight. > > > Would you say the same about the Holocaust? > > The problem isn't armchairs but double standards. > > At the time many countries weren't eager to take in Jews. Now we "tut-tut" No, you don't just "tut-tut", you ask $billions, until the end of time. Why not the Indians too? > Yet, the citizens of Dresden profited from the criminal behavior of > the Nazis. Dresden was full of refugees from the East who had already lost much more than they had gained (if anything at all) from the Nazis' crimes. If profiteering from crimes justifies bombing, then you should carpet-bomb America. Double standards again. Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
