PDA

View Full Version : Do Europeans Have Claim to North America?



Ominous Lord Spoonblade
Monday, June 2nd, 2003, 08:51 PM
We had discovered North America, conquered it, and made it into what it is today...but I was thinking the other day, does that necessarily mean that we can claim North America as ours like we can claim Europe? On one hand we built it into what it was, but on the other hand it is not our indigenous land. We did take it and make it our own, but then does that mean that non-white immigrants coming and "out-breeding" whites in European countries is fair game? It is only us who are allowing it to happen. Do we deserve what happened to the American Indians? Maybe North America was destined to be multi-cultural -it was that way as soon as the English and French set foot on the soil!

Also, if North America is rightfully "ours", what is the significance of Europe? Our land is anywhere we choose it to be, no matter how long our ancestors have walked upon it?

cosmocreator
Monday, June 2nd, 2003, 09:18 PM
I take exception to the use of the word "we." My ancestors go back 400 years here and really did conquer this land. Knowing your ancestry, it is unlikely you can say the same. Nonetheless, It's nice to have you aboard.:ultrawink

Ominous Lord Spoonblade
Monday, June 2nd, 2003, 09:33 PM
I am speaking of all Europeans in North America...once it was the French and British, now today it is all different groups of "whites" living in North America. "We" as in our race, not ethnicity.

btw, you did not answer the question x_nono :ultrawink The fact that you have ancestry going so far back in North America makes this an all more relevant question to you :)

cosmocreator
Monday, June 2nd, 2003, 09:52 PM
I sense that Vanessa is not in a very good mood.:erm

:confused: What was the question?

We took the land from the injuns and now the :poo poo races of the world are taking it from us. Is this fair?

Life is not fair. We are allowing it to happen. I don't think many want it. But what are they going to do?

Ominous Lord Spoonblade
Monday, June 2nd, 2003, 09:57 PM
Naaah, I'm in a pretty good mood! Same mood as everyday. I'm pretty steady :D

Scáthach
Monday, June 2nd, 2003, 10:50 PM
i think this a great topic to bring up Vanessa!
of course im not american so i havent really the right to say whether or not you have the claim to the land or not but in my opinion believing a people have a claim to the land they invade isnt morally right. of course,life isnt all about morals and hence the real politik comes into play and for that reason i think of north america as being the white mans land because he built it into what it is and because he has lived and prospoured (well generally lol) there for so long.
I look on this question (and south africa etc) in a similar way,on the one hand i can understand where the white people of these countries are coming from but on the otherhand i tend to relate it to the problems between Britain and Ireland (its a similar theme,invasion from a more ''modern'' people to a less developed country) and even though the Brits brought new farming methods which benefited the Irish farmer and stayed for many centuries (we're talking the plantation times to more modern times,even today as Ulster people could tell you) does that mean they have claim to ireland? - because they introduced some aspects of ''civilisation'' to us '''gombeens'' and because they stayed for so so so long?
absolutely not.of course unionists would argue they do but no real irish patriot would.i know the situations are diverse but as i said,this situation is what comes to mind when i hear people talk of who has the claim to america.
i understand there is a difference and sharp contrast between whether whites or indians have claim to the land and whether white brits or white irish have claim to the land but in my opinion no british will ever have any claim to my country and i suppose many americans may now feel that no non whites have any claim to their land.
but originally,and i guess this is the point of my post,the indians had the full moral claim to america but with the advent of the white man he took over and now it is his land and rightfully so for he made it prosper where the indians didnt/couldnt.
this is utterly different to the situation wherein the brits came here and helped irish agriculture - yes they helped (but they hindered FAR more) but the point is we are and were more than capable of sorting ourselves out and running a fine country.
the indians werent. and for that reason the invasion over america was valid and justified where the irish invasion wasnt and so the white american has claim to north america but the white brit has none to Eire.

ps i dont know how my posts get so long winded and off topic :confused:

Ominous Lord Spoonblade
Tuesday, June 3rd, 2003, 04:22 AM
ps i dont know how my posts get so long winded and off topic

No no, it was all on topic. The situation with Ireland is totally relevent and an interesting addition to the topic :) You made a lot of good points, white men did make America/Canada what it is, there is no doubt about that! This question for me really comes out of a loss of feeling a tie to this land. I could never speak the way about Canada that you do about Ireland! Not ever!

Allenson
Tuesday, June 3rd, 2003, 05:19 PM
This a an excellent question and one that I wrestle with often. I, as Cosmocreator, descend from old colonial stock who came to these shores from the Netherlands, Germany and England as early as the 1630s. I have "Indian-killers" for direct ancestors....literally. One of my ancestors was an English fellow by the name of Aaron Stark who fought in the Pequot Wars in colonial Connecticut which was a set of battles between the English colonials and the native Pequot tribes that lived in what is now CT, MA and RI. Am I proud of this? I don't know just yet but there really isn't much I can do other than to acknowledge it as a part of my personal heritage....

Should we, as those of Euro-ancestry, have sovereign claim to North America? Tough question for me to answer.... Yes indeed, I believe in many of the values that the US was founded on such as the small land-owning, rural, self-sustaining freeman farmer of yesteryear and the right to assemble and the right to bear arms, etc, etc. I also have at least ten direct ancestors who were soldiers in the American revolution so the blood of the brave men and women who were there when the country was born and who believed in what it stood for, flows through my veins. When I look at things this way, I feel that we do have a moral right to be here.....

...however, there is more to the story than just this. It's interesting, when I am working on my genealogy and my ancestral pride starts to swell, there's always a nagging little pang, lodged deep in my genetic memory that keeps this pride in check. This irritant to my sense nationalism is the knowledge that there were others here before, who had lived here for thousands of years, and who had a legitimate right to this land.

I'm not so sure that I agree with this notion that the native Amerinds couldn't have built what the whites did after they arrived here. In my eyes, it's more a matter of their life-style being simply different than that of the European settlers. And on another note, while the Amerinds may have technologically 'inferior' to the colonials, I regard them as being spiritually superior to my Judeo-Christian, desert-god worshipping ancestors. Their nature-venerating, harmonious way of life is something that we should commend...especially in this day and age of global over-population, consumer culture and polluted skies, waters and soils. It is because of this that I am a Nordic Heathen...Sorry, I got a little off-topic, eh?

Anyway, I'm no closer to the answer than I was before I started this post but at least I've thought some more about it and I certainly consider it a worthy and interesting topic of discussion. i look forward to other's opinions.

WhiteFreedom4Ever
Tuesday, June 3rd, 2003, 05:56 PM
North American Indians Were Only Mogoloid Colonizers From Asia

The North American Indian is not "indigenous" to this continent. Like Europeans, he came here as a colonizer. The fact that superior colonizers from Europe eventually pushed him aside is simply a fact of life - and history.

WF4E

Ominous Lord Spoonblade
Tuesday, June 3rd, 2003, 08:43 PM
Yes WF4E, they were colonizers as well but we cannot forget that we basically "colonized" all of Europe. Our ancestors moved to these different lands, we didn't start off in Ireland, Iceland, Germany etc. Would we deserve to have our lands taken over by more advanced extra-terrestrials? Sounds quite sci-fi, I know, but it's the same principle :)

I'm not so sure that I agree with this notion that the native Amerinds couldn't have built what the whites did after they arrived here. In my eyes, it's more a matter of their life-style being simply different than that of the European settlers.

I totally agree there. Where I live the overwhelming majority of natives are in poverty, "bums", alcoholics, chronic gamblers, criminals, etc (and we have very many natives here). I don't think that it was the "white man's" fault for the state of the natives today (like we are taught it is), rather that they weren't ready and couldn't adapt to European civilization. We can't expect all races to evolve the same way as ours. Look at the Japanese, they have a perfectly successful society and a rich culture, but it is so far off from ours!

And on another note, while the Amerinds may have technologically 'inferior' to the colonials, I regard them as being spiritually superior to my Judeo-Christian, desert-god worshipping ancestors.

oh for sure! That was one thing that we lossed was our spirituality...I can't help but think how we may have evolved differently as well had all of Europe not been Christianized.

Scáthach
Tuesday, June 3rd, 2003, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by Vanessa
ps i dont know how my posts get so long winded and off topic

No no, it was all on topic. The situation with Ireland is totally relevent and an interesting addition to the topic :) You made a lot of good points, white men did make America/Canada what it is, there is no doubt about that! This question for me really comes out of a loss of feeling a tie to this land. I could never speak the way about Canada that you do about Ireland! Not ever!

thats such a pity :( i love my country and everything associated with it-i tend to put it on par with my race because i find it so difficult to put one ahead of the other.
you say you dont feel a tie to canada so do you feel a tie to wherever it is your ancestors came from? i imagine thats where most americans/canadians feel bonds,although in a way it must be hard to feel attached to a country if youve never visited or dont have any family still living there :confused:
i suppose the only option for americans and canadians who dont feel they have a direct history in their country is to set about making one however you do that! :)

Jack
Wednesday, June 4th, 2003, 01:58 AM
"Control is Ownership"
- Karl Marx.

North America is ours. As is Europe, Russia, Australia, New Zealand and soon again South Africa (supposing we don't lose it).

Ominous Lord Spoonblade
Wednesday, June 4th, 2003, 02:06 AM
But what about a deeper claim to land, more than simply control?

I dont agree that control is ownership, at least not necessarily rightful ownership.

WhiteFreedom4Ever
Wednesday, June 4th, 2003, 02:28 AM
NORTH AMERICAN INDIANS

Vanessa said:
"Yes WF4E, they were colonizers as well but we cannot forget that we basically "colonized" all of Europe. Our ancestors moved to these different lands, we didn't start off in Ireland, Iceland, Germany etc."

That's very true, and certainly the North American Indian of today would agree with you. However, there are several crucial differences between our "colonization" of Europe and the Mongoloid's colonization of North America. For one thing, the ancestors of modern-day Europeans occupied what is now Europe over 100 thousand years ago, so long ago that actual racial/evolutionary change took place in those early ancestors of ours. In short, our ancestors came to be far more "native" to Europe than the Mongoloids did in North America, since they hadn't lived here long enough to undergo actual racial/evolutionary change. They were true aliens in North America, and weren't "native" at all - any more than the forest monkeys of central Florida - who escaped into the wild years ago can be considered "native". So Europeans did not steal the land of the so-called "native" American Indians, but simply arrived as Johnny-Come-Lately competitors - competitors who eventually came to push aside an earlier "alien" species - the Mongoloids of Asia.

Tom

Moody
Wednesday, June 4th, 2003, 06:44 PM
We need to know what constitutes this notion of 'claim';
1.
Is a 'claim' based on 'divine right'?
The Zionists think that God gave the land of Israel to the Jews. They think that this gives them a claim to land that has been occupied by non-Jews for thousands of years.

2.
Is a 'claim' based on 'here first'?
There would have to be a statute of limitations here, otherwise there will be interminable arguments all based on the nihilistic notion that no one was ever first ... anywhere.
So it may be reasonable to say that if a land was held by a certain people for say, three centuries, then they have a 'claim' to the land that cannot be alienated by any who come afterwards.

3.
Or is 'claim' based merely on 'possession'?
This is the amoral position of 'might is right', although it is often said that 'possession is 9 10ths of the law'.

It seems that Americans can only operate under the latter 'claim'.

Nordhammer
Tuesday, October 28th, 2003, 03:20 AM
Ultimately those who own something ARE those who are powerful enough to claim it and defend it. We have laws setup to do what we deem as justice, however twisted and unfair it may be. But, if someone enters your home, kills you and takes your money, he ultimately has it and you are gone. This is really the only utlimate power and the way history has played out. To the victor go the spoils.

If you want a greater justification for the ownership, like ancient dwelling, then the case of Caucasoids migrating to North America during or before the Mongoloids is something of interest to you. If they did, then we have rightful claim to it, and also since the Caucasoids were either killed and/or assimilated, then the death of American Indians could be said to be karma and perhaps a just payback.

Nevertheless, what's done is done. We have a mighty civilization here that is considered to be the foremost superpower of the world. This isn't something you just pack up and leave.

Moody
Wednesday, October 29th, 2003, 08:32 PM
The question shows how difficult morals are, and how easy hypocrisy is.
Can one hold to a creed of 'Blood and Soil' for oneself, but deny it to others?
It is easy to do, but it IS hypocritical.

The USA Declaration of Independence condemns the British King for placing his armies on American soil - could not the Iraqi's use the same objections towards the Americans?
Is not America behaving towards the Iraqis in the same way as the British did to the Americans?
By the same ideology, the Iraqi's have a right to fight a war of independence, but the Americans will not recognise this and call them terrorists.

Ultimately, is one to take a principled and moral position, or is one going to take the easy route of unprincipled amoralism?
Those who take the latter should never complain about any injustices heaped upon them as they only adhere to 'might is right'. When they feel dispossessed themselves, they should agree that this is 'right'.

Death, though, is the ultimate victor - because in the 'long run we are all dead'.

Do the dead have rights?

The Egyptians are calling for the return of ancient Mummies to their homeland - is that right?

Or is it a sign of strength to be able to give back things which were stolen in the past?

Mac Seafraidh
Wednesday, October 29th, 2003, 09:30 PM
The answer is yes, besides America was named after an Italian anyway. My statement is non explanitory but is showing that a European has bascially claimed it by giving it a name.

Italia_Ariana
Wednesday, October 29th, 2003, 09:34 PM
The answer is yes, besides America was named after an Italian anyway. My statement is non explanitory but is showing that a European has bascially claimed it by giving it a name.

MVSSOLINI MIT VNS:

I would like to know if you would consider moving to Italy. Most Italian nationalists would love to see the diaspora italiana from Australia, Latin America, and North America return home.

Awar
Thursday, October 30th, 2003, 01:19 AM
Any teritory is fair game for the more competent ones.
The question is if the ones who already live there can consolidate and fight back.

I think the world, especially whites have reached a point where there is no need to fight over teritories in the classic sense. So, now there is a chance to try to mend all the damage done in the most expansionistic times.

It's unfortunate that many great civlizations and peoples were wiped-out in the process of colonialization and exploitation.

The very countries from which the riches have been drained are now exporting their citizens to ex-imperial masters, because on average they are young, and the former masters are getting old in average.

It's all fair, nothing that hasn't happened before. It's just a question of making smart moves.

American rednecks have a right to hate Italians, just as Italians can take pride in their men discovering and naming the continent.

Some may consider Slavs an alien people in America, but they forget of the first owners of Alaska, the thousands of Ukrainians and Russians who settled in America long before the civil wars....wars in which many Serbs fought... etc.

America is a joined venture of many European peoples.
In the end, someone will prevail....someone smart.
Now, the concept of an American ethnicity is prevailing, turning the entire country into a big mush of races and ethnicities who bow down to the all-powerful god of MONEY.

Perhaps in another 400 years, there will be a huge immigration of brown, slant-eyed Americans into Europe, some of them may even exclaim: "My ancestors were the original settlers over 800 years ago!" and try to lay claim to European soil... :D

Dr. Solar Wolff
Thursday, October 30th, 2003, 07:17 AM
Let's get real. Our claim to North America is the claim of the gun. We have guns and the Indians did not. The claim is military force just as Isreal claims Occupied Palestine. I might add that there is some evidence that the Mongoloid Indians were not the first in the New World and that if this is true, they also took claim via force.

Moody
Friday, October 31st, 2003, 06:36 PM
Let's get real. Our claim to North America is the claim of the gun. We have guns and the Indians did not. The claim is military force just as Isreal claims Occupied Palestine. I might add that there is some evidence that the Mongoloid Indians were not the first in the New World and that if this is true, they also took claim via force.

Did they?
Or did they migrate into unihabited parts of the territory [assuming that the world's population was much smaller then]?
Also, hunter-gatherers tend not to have the same static sense of 'territory' as agriculturalists.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 06:06 AM
The answer is yes, besides America was named after an Italian anyway. My statement is non explanitory but is showing that a European has bascially claimed it by giving it a name.
Dude, it was Richard Amerike, a Welshman who's name is the source of America. Can you Medicists let it rest? Oh, and Columbus found Mesoamerica, not North America.

Stríbog
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 06:42 AM
Uh, it was named for Amerigo Vespucci, the explorer from Firenze... This is common knowledge and is not "Medicist."

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 06:50 AM
Uh, it was named for Amerigo Vespucci, the explorer from Firenze... This is common knowledge and is not "Medicist."I doubt it. There is actual proof that Amerike from Bristol was a seaman who took part in the colonisation process of North America. Amerike comes from ap Meryk, "of the Sea". Why is the most common slang version Amerika?

Need we compromise? Amerigo for Latin America.

Stríbog
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 07:02 AM
North America has more Italians and Italian cultural influence than South America, so I am not sure what you are talking about.

Even in the "Amerike" legend of which you speak, he was not a sailor but a financier of shipping expeditions. The very expedition which supposedly gave his name to the continent was actually led by an Italian, Giovanni Caboto (John Cabot).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Amerike

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 07:04 AM
Heh, I read that already. I'm fine with Giovanni Cabot being the guy. I just don't think Columbus needs to have a national holiday in the USA nor do I care for Vespucci's parttaking in the whole affair. I think his part in this may be just as overblown as Amerike. I do not believe Vespucci deserves the hemisphere after him. That's some sick, sick esteem of a nobody. Men were referred by their last names, except kings. I believe that is enough to prove my point that his issue was a fraud.

Gesta Bellica
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 07:55 AM
Heh, I read that already. I'm fine with Giovanni Cabot being the guy. I just don't think Columbus needs to have a national holiday in the USA nor do I care for Vespucci's parttaking in the whole affair. I think his part in this may be just as overblown as Amerike. I do not believe Vespucci deserves the hemisphere after him. That's some sick, sick esteem of a nobody. Men were referred by their last names, except kings. I believe that is enough to prove my point that his issue was a fraud.

Vespucci was the first to realize that America was not a part of Asia but a new land, i think he deserves some credit, at least for that.
Not exactly Mr.Nobody.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 08:11 AM
Like I said, last names are what the men were known by.

Gesta Bellica
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 08:21 AM
Like I said, last names are what the men were known by.
You mean like Galileo (Galilei) , Michelangelo (Buonarotti) , Raffaello (Sanzio), Leonardo (da Vinci) Giotto (di Bondone) etc?
These are all first names

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 10:16 AM
You mean like Galileo (Galilei) , Michelangelo (Buonarotti) , Raffaello (Sanzio), Leonardo (da Vinci) Giotto (di Bondone) etc?
These are all first names
Sorry, I forgot the Mediterranean people do that. It's not so common in the North unless you know somebody personally. I don't agree with your custom, but oh well.

Gesta Bellica
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 10:56 AM
Sorry, I forgot the Mediterranean people do that. It's not so common in the North unless you know somebody personally. I don't agree with your custom, but oh well.

It was used in the middle age for important personalities, now it's not used anymore..and it was an Italian prerogative as far as i know.
It might be derivated from the Latin customs (Nero, Augustus, etc) considering that the Romans family name were used also as names..
You don't need to agree with our customs ;)

Turificator
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 01:30 PM
The Judeo-Protestant-Masonic USA should be dismantled. Native Americans should adopt a eugenic policy and invigorate their ancestral cultures. European-Americans should consider moving to Europe (once they have become de-Americanized, that is! :D), or live in small pockets of land (Volk communities).

Ideally, that is...

http://avanguardia.altervista.org/Man189a.jpg

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 05:15 PM
Gesta Bellica:
I knew that, just forgot. I tended to hate Roman culture so much I put it out of my mind.

Turificator:
Wtf? Geronimo? I believe the native tribes should reside in western North America, with the Asian immigrants. I believe that European immigrants should have eastern North America. That's how it started off and just fine I might add. I believe the African immigrants should head for South America.

Fraxinus Excelsior
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 09:43 PM
All this talk of European explorers and everyone has forgotten about Sir Henry Sinclair (Scottish) and Antonio Zeno (Venetian).

www.firstfoot.com/Great%20Scot/siclair.htm (http://www.firstfoot.com/Great%20Scot/siclair.htm) (it's not the best source of info, but it gets the job done; or just look them up on www.google.com (http://www.google.com/))

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 10:15 PM
I am more recollective of Sinclair than Zeno, but I did see his name written somewhere too.

Fraxinus Excelsior
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 11:24 PM
FYI: Zeno was the navigator for the expedition.

Actually, it's rather ideal to celebrate these two instead of the others: Sinclair (Scandinavian-Scottish Noble) and Zeno (Venetian-Italian Sea-Merchant). Kills the whole "medicist" vs. "nordicist" crap.

There, now we all win.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 11:50 PM
Revisionism can be positive if it doesn't distort the facts.

Rachel
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 03:52 AM
I think it's important to remember that Europeans just as well as the nomadic Mongoloid tribes, are both immigrants to North America; whether you came across on a ship or by a strait.

The cold hard fact is that Europeans, dominantly English, French & Spaniard, fought the Mongoloid's and settled this land to create lebensraum for their families and future generations. Fair and square! And I think it's fair to say that they would have done the same if the situation had been reversed, although I'm sure we wouldn't have any European minority special interest groups :P

Wasn’t it Darwin that said, “The strong survive and the weak perish.”

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 01:16 PM
How does extinction and extirpation seem fair when done to humans? They are not flies, you know?

Fraxinus Excelsior
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 04:52 PM
I think it's important to remember that Europeans just as well as the nomadic Mongoloid tribes, are both immigrants to North America; whether you came across on a ship or by a strait.

The cold hard fact is that Europeans, dominantly English, French & Spaniard, fought the Mongoloid's and settled this land to create lebensraum for their families and future generations. Fair and square! And I think it's fair to say that they would have done the same if the situation had been reversed, although I'm sure we wouldn't have any European minority special interest groups :P

Wasn’t it Darwin that said, “The strong survive and the weak perish.”
:handclap

'Nuff said.

Telperion
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 05:07 PM
It should probably be added to the discussion in this thread that large portions of North America were ceded by the Natives to the European-settlers by treaty (probably more in Canada than in the US), so the process was not purely one of conquest by force. Sometimes Natives voluntarily gave up their rights to very large tracts of land (the size of France of larger) in exchange for specific financial or other rights. Some of these rights have proved useless (e.g. a $5 a month payment for every member of the tribe means nothing in today's debased currency), but others can be quite valuable. Near to where I live, for instance, there is a Native reservation that does a very lucrative business in gasoline and retail sales because, due to applicable treaties, no business on the reservation is subject to sales, gasoline or other taxes that would be applicable off-reserve.

SudVolk
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 09:19 PM
Gesta Bellica:
...I tended to hate Roman culture so much I put it out of my mind.
Here's a challenge: try and explain what you think "Roman culture" is, but without using the Roman alphabet.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 10:33 PM
Here's a challenge: try and explain what you think "Roman culture" is, but without using the Roman alphabet.
I hate the fact that illiteracy in the Roman alphabet will get people shunned and taken as retarded. I have sloppy handwriting. When I saw the runes, ogham; and that stuff that Tolkien was working on, that was Finnish?, I liked it.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 01:08 AM
http://www.fotw.net/images/f/fr_roys.gif

Viva La France!!!!!!

Telperion
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 05:29 PM
And the descendants of invaders, mostly blacks I presume, with northern africans, etc. will justify their right to own the land exactly as some of you do for northern america. "we were the most numerous, the strongest, or the cleverest, anyway doesn't matter, it's ours now".

But in this possible future, I dare to say that the descendants of true former Europeans would have the right to stand up and fight to free the land of their ancestors, and claim it back.
For never, even after centuries and centuries, would Europe truly belong to the african scum that once invaded it, never would it be their homeland.

Now transpose what I've said precedently about Europe for your northern American question.This is an interesting perspective, and intuitively you have a point. But, to clarify, I imagine you are speaking about races as opposed to ethnicities? I ask because if one were to apply this perspective to ethnicities within Europe, then practically everyone would have the 'right' to expel someone else from their current territory - e.g. you could say that the English are still continential invaders of Britain and that the Welsh have the right to drive them into the sea and regain their British homeland. Yet, this would seem absurd on its face. So, the race versus ethnicity distinction is an important one in this context.

The homeland question is interesting. The homelands of all races, in the sense of the place where they evolved and developed their racial character, are found in the Old World. If an Amerindian were to accuse me of occupying his homeland, I would point out that, leaving aside the fact his ancestors surrendered this particular area of land in a treaty, this isn't his homeland strictly speaking in any event.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Sunday, May 30th, 2004, 06:55 PM
Post-Scriptum for Rodskarl :
We don't say the word "viva", in fact we say "Vive la France". That's the Italians and Spaniards that say "viva" with an "a". Anyway, thank you comrade ;) . Long live to Norge, too. And may I say that I am honoured to talk to a Vanir. (I didn't know that your blessed kind was linked to the web.) Send my respectful greetings at the grands in Vanaheim.
LOL :) Regards yourself; monsiegneur Vlaams.

NormanBlood
Monday, May 31st, 2004, 05:10 AM
Vive le Québec et vive la Normandie!

Bah, screw Columbus (who did NOT discover NA btw;)) and Cabot...Cartier and de Champlain all the way! :D

I feel a stronger tie to Québec than France. I have been to France and I felt a stranger there. But then again my ancestors were invaders of France originally as well :P I feel that Québec's climate and atmosphere is compatible with that of north western Europe so I don't feel much out of place.

As for the natives, I do respect them a lot. I do believe they should be given their own lands within Canada and be allowed to self govern, as I belieev Québec should be solely for the Québécois and should be allowed to self govern. Canada is very torn up unlike many other countries. It is split up into the West, Ontario, Québec, the Maritimes and the northern Terrirtories..of which the groups living within those places don't quite like those living in the other regions lol

About the guns...I would rather a bow and arrow than a 17th century musket that is for sure!! Bad aim..takes forever to load lol The problem was the natives were not completely unified against the invaders, and were very naive. The natives did not really give up the land "willingly" as someone mentioned. The problem was the Native and European costumes were very different, also the Natives did not fully understand the situation in its entirety.

Theudanaz
Monday, May 31st, 2004, 08:05 AM
Don't forget Leifr Eiriksson, the first recorded discoverer of Vinland (after Bjarni Hergelfsson). BTW Amerigo is a Germanic name: Amalric, Emmerich. Columbus was a Norwegian, Christopher Bonde. And don't forget the Lombards and the various other Nordids who invaded/conquered/sacked in Italy?

""The most convincing evidence was Columbus' coat of arms,"
said Sannes. In the position designating a father's lineage, it
bears an emblem identical to that used by the Bonde family, he
said.
Sannes said Columbus' father could have been a member of the
noble Bonde family who he believes fled to Italy in the 1400s to
avoid persecution in Norway.
Sannes cited other bits of evidence: Columbus never wrote in
Italian, he called himself a foreigner in southern Europe and he
was described in some biographies as tall, fair and blue-eyed,
typical Nordic characteristics.
Sannes said documents on Columbus gathered by Genoa residents
in the 1930s mentioned the Norwegian Bonde family and other
associates of the explorer with ties to Norway.
Sannes said Columbus' son Fernando, in a biography of his
father, wrote that the explorer never wanted to disclose where he
was born, but called himself a man of the sea."

Anyway,
Anyone know anymore about the racial characteristics of the Amerinds' predecessors?

BTW Everything we have is on loan to us. Let us use it well, govern it rightly, and be blessed by it.

-Thiudans

Gesta Bellica
Monday, May 31st, 2004, 10:42 AM
Don't forget Leifr Eiriksson, the first recorded discoverer of Vinland (after Bjarni Hergelfsson). BTW Amerigo is a Germanic name: Amalric, Emmerich. Columbus was a Norwegian, Christopher Bonde. And don't forget the Lombards and the various other Nordids who invaded/conquered/sacked in Italy?

""The most convincing evidence was Columbus' coat of arms,"
said Sannes. In the position designating a father's lineage, it
bears an emblem identical to that used by the Bonde family, he
said.
Sannes said Columbus' father could have been a member of the
noble Bonde family who he believes fled to Italy in the 1400s to
avoid persecution in Norway.
Sannes cited other bits of evidence: Columbus never wrote in
Italian, he called himself a foreigner in southern Europe and he
was described in some biographies as tall, fair and blue-eyed,
typical Nordic characteristics.
Sannes said documents on Columbus gathered by Genoa residents
in the 1930s mentioned the Norwegian Bonde family and other
associates of the explorer with ties to Norway.
Sannes said Columbus' son Fernando, in a biography of his
father, wrote that the explorer never wanted to disclose where he
was born, but called himself a man of the sea."

Anyway,
Anyone know anymore about the racial characteristics of the Amerinds' predecessors?

BTW Everything we have is on loan to us. Let us use it well, govern it rightly, and be blessed by it.

-Thiudans

It's not surprising that Colombo never wrote in Italian as the Italian language as we know it didn't exist at time, it was a literature language used by an handful of authors.
The official language was still Latin and the dialect (vulgar ) of Genoa is totally different from the actual Italian.
He called himself a foreigner in SE cos he felt like he was mistreated by the Spanish government after all he has done for them.
I have heard in this site that Colombo was a converted Jew, a Greek from Constantinople, etc..
Is it really so hard to accept that he simply was a Genoan? :anieyes
After all the Italians already had a good notoriety as sailormen and explorators.
Just let's not forget for example the importance of Marco Polo that was the first who explored the East Asia and documented about it.
Or the same Vespucci, who was the first to realize that America was indeed a new Continental mass.

It's apalling to notice that some Nordicists are so unhappy with their achievements in culture/history that they feel the URGE to steal ours, by "nordicising" every person or phenomenon that orginated from our Southern European countries
I consider it an honour in some way :D

Theudanaz
Monday, May 31st, 2004, 12:05 PM
Well the evidence on the website about sanne's book sounded good, though it was coincidentally written by a Norwegian. I had heard the rumor several years ago by a friend so I was intrigued to come upon it again here, and posted it more as a lighthearted retort to the subthread of nordics vs meds. Columbus was also thought to have learned of Eiriksson's travels on his previous voyage north, via Iceland. btw travels to China were supposed to be already common by Marco Polo's day. But no, I do think pasta was a European/Italian invention, not copied from China (but perhaps the reverse?). :)

-Thiudans

Moody
Monday, May 31st, 2004, 12:10 PM
There could be a 'claim' based on racial superiority.

If it could be shown that all non-Aryan migrations have only occured IN THE WAKE of Aryan forays.
In other words, non-Aryans only left their own homelands when they were taken as slaves by the Aryans, or they came in as guest workers at the Aryan's behest, or else they took advantage of Aryan inventions such as the aeroplane.

If that is so, then non-Aryans do not have any primary claims to colonised areas of the world [and the planets eventually]. Likewise, the Aryan, as the only genuinely colonising race has absolute right to colonise wherever and whenever he likes.

Also, as healthy Aryan birth-rates must always be increasing [ideally], then colonisation must always be a necessity. Therefore Aryans must see to it that non-Aryan birth-rates are accordingly controlled.

http://home.cfl.rr.com/crossland/AncientCivilizations/Middle_East_Civilizations/Persians/KingDarius_Seal-AhuraMazdaRisesInMidst.jpg

Gesta Bellica
Monday, May 31st, 2004, 12:18 PM
Well the evidence on the website about sanne's book sounded good, though it was coincidentally written by a Norwegian. I had heard the rumor several years ago by a friend so I was intrigued to come upon it again here, and posted it more as a lighthearted retort to the subthread of nordics vs meds. Columbus was also thought to have learned of Eiriksson's travels on his previous voyage north, via Iceland. btw travels to China were supposed to be already common by Marco Polo's day. But no, I do think pasta was a European/Italian invention, not copied from China (but perhaps the reverse?). :)

-Thiudans

The only realistic thing is that Columbus might have used some old maps (may they come from vikings or from anglo-saxons fishermen) in order to orientate in his trip.
There are also rumours about Shakespeare being an Italian then, if we gotta pay attention to all the gossip that we can find in books and on the net.
So we can make a deal, the Nordicist can have Culumbus and we can have Shakespeare? ;)
Travels to China were so common that all those traders/explorators before Marco Polo disappeared without a trace?
He didn't just travel there but it also lived there as Qublay Khan's dignitary, it's anyway far different that to go there and buy some furs and spices and then come back home.

Mac Seafraidh
Monday, May 31st, 2004, 03:15 PM
The "American Indians" were there first, but did not claim the territory. Lacking imperialistic knowledge costed them, but if they did claim the land mostly likely would still be destroyed. Hail Vespucci for naming our former European colony which answers the question. Even today we should have the right to kick non-Europeans out, but action or thought was never brought about at that time:(

Telperion
Monday, May 31st, 2004, 05:08 PM
Culpabilisation is only a tool for our common enemies to make us weak and without pride of what we are.

I think that's an important point. At some level, the issue of who originally had the right to the land is not very relevant, since the fact is we are the ones who occupy it now - although we are in the process of being gradually displaced. I'd agree that what happened to the Natives wasn't particularly fair, but the past is past.

Telperion
Monday, May 31st, 2004, 05:19 PM
There could be a 'claim' based on racial superiority.

If it could be shown that all non-Aryan migrations have only occured IN THE WAKE of Aryan forays.
In other words, non-Aryans only left their own homelands when they were taken as slaves by the Aryans, or they came in as guest workers at the Aryan's behest, or else they took advantage of Aryan inventions such as the aeroplane.

If that is so, then non-Aryans do not have any primary claims to colonised areas of the world [and the planets eventually]. Likewise, the Aryan, as the only genuinely colonising race has absolute right to colonise wherever and whenever he likes.Well, it would probably be difficult to establish this. A prominent counter-example would be the conquest of the southern Mediterranean basin by the Arab Muslims in the 7th Century AD, which wasn't driven by an 'Aryan' migration etc. One can probably think of other examples of non-Aryans leaving their homelands without being pushed out or invited in by Aryans, e.g. the invasion of Europe by the Huns in the 5th century AD (apparently after they were pushed out of Mongolia by the Han Chinese).

At a certain point, occupation of land does appear to come down to 'might makes right', regardless of the race that occupies it. Perhaps the issue of having a 'right' or 'claim' to land on some metaphysical level simply obscures this rather harsh underlying reality.


Also, as healthy Aryan birth-rates must always be increasing [ideally], then colonisation must always be a necessity. At a certain point, this becomes ecologically unsustainable, unless civilization has the technology to support the colonization of other planets (which still seems a very long way off). Otherwise, it is necessary to stabilize the birthrate at a level that doesn't outstrip the Earth's 'carrying capacity.'


Therefore Aryans must see to it that non-Aryan birth-rates are accordingly controlled.
That would certainly be helpful, since right now they breed like rabbits. Perhaps we could spike their drinking water with something.

Moody
Tuesday, June 1st, 2004, 03:45 PM
"Here first" is a moral claim all can recognise.

I was thinking therefore of the claims made on the basis of being the "first" inhabitants of a land.
Therefore my surmise is that the Aryan race by definition is that race which pushed outwards from its homeland in prehistory to occupy virgin continents.
Only long after this did other races 'tag along', whether by will or its lack.

There is something very haunting about the Aryan hypothesis that suggests this, with atavistic remnants of Aryanism in the Americas, China etc.,

Of course recent movements of other peoples in the historical period, as you mention, have little bearing on what is a pre-historic surmise.

I don't think that the colonisation of the other planets is a long way off in historical terms if we look at the rather short span of man's development compared with that of other creatures - we are still relatively in our infancy, and have much to do in the future.
We must work towards a goal.

I believe also that we MUST keep our birth-rates ABOVE replacement rates [they are are now below in many cases] and make adjustments with eugenics and euthanasia for our own and restrictment programmes for others.
I don't see how else we can expect to survive in the long run.

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wgeorge/images/importD2.jpg

Telperion
Tuesday, June 1st, 2004, 04:10 PM
"Here first" is a moral claim all can recognise.

I was thinking therefore of the claims made on the basis of being the "first" inhabitants of a land...

There is something very haunting about the Aryan hypothesis that suggests this, with atavistic remnants of Aryanism in the Americas, China etc.,

Of course recent movements of other peoples in the historical period, as you mention, have little bearing on what is a pre-historic surmise.
It's certainly worth investigating, since the 'here first' claim to terra nullius (vacant land) has traditionally had legal as well as moral standing. A lot more work in archealogy might help to provide evidence to support this pre-historic hypothesis. (Eastern North America would be a good place to start, since prehistorical monuments such as e.g. 'America's Stonehenge' in New Hampshire appear far more consistent with European megalithic cultures than anything made by the Amerindians. One can also find interesting stone-carvings from Mesoamerica that depict bearded figures who clearly look more European than Amerindian.)

Until we can establish a strong empirical case for this hypothesis, though, we are still effectively left with the somewhat less morally compelling 'might makes right' claim (given that treaties signed by the Amerinds did have an element of duress to them).

Moody
Tuesday, June 1st, 2004, 04:36 PM
Thanks for taking the Aryan hypothesis seriously - I believe that much work was being done on it up until World War 2; since then it has become rather taboo.
However, I believe that there is much to recommend the suggestion that the Aryans were the "Makers of Civilization" [Waddell].

I don't think that Might is Right can properly be called a "moral" claim as it has no moral force, only brute force.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Tuesday, June 1st, 2004, 06:59 PM
Thanks for taking the Aryan hypothesis seriously - I believe that much work was being done on it up until World War 2; since then it has become rather taboo.
However, I believe that there is much to recommend the suggestion that the Aryans were the "Makers of Civilization" [Waddell].

I don't think that Might is Right can properly be called a "moral" claim as it has no moral force, only brute force.

This "Aryan"(Indo-Persian) - I will not be a party to this label or your ideas associated to it either. You want to help those in the lands west of the Ural mountains? Recognise a few things or lose the faith of many. I am not the only one who despises the label; it doesn't exactly have to do with WW2. Europe is a word that also is foreign; "Ereb", the same source as Arab and out of their language. I find it highly insulting that people choose foreign names to describe the tribes and nations of the lands west of Ural country. This is just like using the Abrahamic religions to define the people's thoughts and beliefs west of the Urals. This brings no more sense of self-love, but a feeling of foreign entanglements and dictation. You will not win the hearts of the majority following this course.

NormanBlood
Tuesday, June 1st, 2004, 07:58 PM
Here's a challenge: try and explain what you think "Roman culture" is, but without using the Roman alphabet.

Hah! Gladly if I had Runic type set on my comp ;)

Aryans were one tribe..not our entire race.


The "American Indians" were there first, but did not claim the territory. Lacking imperialistic knowledge costed them, but if they did claim the land mostly likely would still be destroyed. Hail Vespucci for naming our former European colony which answers the question. Even today we should have the right to kick non-Europeans out, but action or thought was never brought about at that time

I hate people who do not respect the Natives for their WAY OF LIFE and the quite breath taking society they built up until the invasion. Your outlook is the EXACT same outlook the Romans had on the Teutonic and Celtic peoples during those times. I am proud that my ancestors were so strong, and I do believe we (those of French and British Isles descent) have the right to be in North America, but the Natives do too. My suggestion has always been to split the land up seperating the two peoples so that they have no contact with each other. The Natives free to return to THEIR old way of life and us (Fr.+Brit.) to ours. EVERYBODY ELSE should GET THE HELL OUT! There are of course old German famillies that have been around forever and a day..but anything newer than that should leave.

As for the numerous blacks "taking over"..just let them try militarily *rollseyes*

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Tuesday, June 1st, 2004, 08:23 PM
Hah! Gladly if I had Runic type set on my comp ;)

Aryans were one tribe..not our entire race.



I hate people who do not respect the Natives for their WAY OF LIFE and the quite breath taking society they built up until the invasion. Your outlook is the EXACT same outlook the Romans had on the Teutonic and Celtic peoples during those times. I am proud that my ancestors were so strong, and I do believe we (those of French and British Isles descent) have the right to be in North America, but the Natives do too. My suggestion has always been to split the land up seperating the two peoples so that they have no contact with each other. The Natives free to return to THEIR old way of life and us (Fr.+Brit.) to ours. EVERYBODY ELSE should GET THE HELL OUT! There are of course old German famillies that have been around forever and a day..but anything newer than that should leave.

As for the numerous blacks "taking over"..just let them try militarily *rollseyes*
I agree with you. However, postulating different ideas with them doesn't work. It seems to be a close minded set. I had come up with a few ideas that might even help advance their style and they ignore it or laugh it off. Not that I really hope for all I've theorised could happen. I am more like figuring out 'what ifs' to the future. I believe the natives deserve the western half of North America. I have no problem with them being there.

Gesta Bellica
Tuesday, June 1st, 2004, 10:20 PM
People that are not Franco/German/AngloSaxon but that are still European caucasoids have the same right to stay in America than the former.

Telperion
Tuesday, June 1st, 2004, 11:51 PM
People that are not Franco/German/AngloSaxon but that are still European caucasoids have the same right to stay in America than the former.
I agree with that, at least to the extent that any European group that came here and contributed something to building the country has a right to remain here. Ukrainians, for instance, were responsible for settling and building the infrastructure of a large portion of Western Canada, while Italians were instrumental in the post-war construction boom in many cities. If they were to be thrown out, one could say they ought to tear down everything they built here before going back to Europe.

It's also interesting to compare the contributions of these European groups, who actually helped to build North America, to a lot of the so-called 'refugees' from Asia and Africa today who simply parasitize off of public funds, while 'contributing' illegal drug sales and gang violence. These are the people who should be expelled expeditiously.

Nordhammer
Wednesday, June 2nd, 2004, 12:33 PM
I agree with that, at least to the extent that any European group that came here and contributed something to building the country has a right to remain here. Ukrainians, for instance, were responsible for settling and building the infrastructure of a large portion of Western Canada, while Italians were instrumental in the post-war construction boom in many cities. If they were to be thrown out, one could say they ought to tear down everything they built here before going back to Europe.

It's also interesting to compare the contributions of these European groups, who actually helped to build North America, to a lot of the so-called 'refugees' from Asia and Africa today who simply parasitize off of public funds, while 'contributing' illegal drug sales and gang violence. These are the people who should be expelled expeditiously.

Then you could also argue for the permanency of Negroids and Jews. In such a case, then partitioning could take place.

Carl_Rylander
Wednesday, June 2nd, 2004, 04:17 PM
We had discovered North America, conquered it, and made it into what it is today...but I was thinking the other day, does that necessarily mean that we can claim North America as ours like we can claim Europe? On one hand we built it into what it was, but on the other hand it is not our indigenous land.

The US and Canada are political entities that did not exist until Europeans settled permanently on the North American continent. Before Europeans arrived, "North America" was just an unnamed continent with a scattering of Indian tribes. So North America is ours because we created "North America".

Telperion
Wednesday, June 2nd, 2004, 05:10 PM
Then you could also argue for the permanency of Negroids and Jews. In such a case, then partitioning could take place.I'm not sure partitioning is something that will ever actually happen, but in principle I think that would be the best way to deal with blacks in the US at least. (I mean those who are the descendents of slaves, not recent immigrants from the Carribean or Africa, who should be repatriated in my view.)

Personally, I would not send these long-established blacks (slave-descendents) back to Africa - it would be better if they had their own country here, where all of them lived, and where they could rise or fall on their own merits. That would certainly be better than the failed experiment of integrating blacks into white society, which in practice has been a highly dysfunctional integration that, except for a tiny black elite who benefit from the status quo, hardly serves the interests of most blacks any more than it serves our interests. What is more, a number of blacks would probably agree with that statement - under the right political circumstances, it would be better to reach some sort of arrangement with them then engage in a fruitless conflict.

As for the Jews - I would not say they have the sort of right to be here that black slave-descendents have, since for the most part they have not made the same sort of tangible contributions to building the national infrastructure (in fact, quite the contrary). I am probably a bit of a heretic on this forum in that I tend to think the problem with Jews is more with their culture and religion (especially their religion where it is equated with political Zionism) than an inherent problem with them. I might be flamed for that opinion, but that's my view of the subject.

So, I think that if the Jews had a different set of beliefs or practices, and lived by themselves in closed communities, then there would no more be a 'Jewish problem' than there is currently an 'Amish problem' or even a 'Mormon problem'. But, that's not currently the case. I would, at a minimum, say to them that if they do not completely abandon or renounce the destructive ideology of Zionism, then they must leave - let them go to Israel and slug it out with the Palestinians, if no one else will have them.

Nordhammer
Wednesday, June 2nd, 2004, 10:26 PM
I'm not sure partitioning is something that will ever actually happen, but in principle I think that would be the best way to deal with blacks in the US at least. (I mean those who are the descendents of slaves, not recent immigrants from the Carribean or Africa, who should be repatriated in my view.)

It's as realistic as any of the other plans.


Personally, I would not send these long-established blacks (slave-descendents) back to Africa - it would be better if they had their own country here, where all of them lived, and where they could rise or fall on their own merits.

I disagree. I think they would still be a burden in some way. I recommend repatriation back to Africa, and economic aid for a time to assist in their acclimation and in building infrastructure.


As for the Jews - I would not say they have the sort of right to be here that black slave-descendents have, since for the most part they have not made the same sort of tangible contributions to building the national infrastructure (in fact, quite the contrary). I am probably a bit of a heretic on this forum in that I tend to think the problem with Jews is more with their culture and religion (especially their religion where it is equated with political Zionism) than an inherent problem with them. I might be flamed for that opinion, but that's my view of the subject.

They have been among the elites, and have contributed in intellectual fields. However in the same way that blacks are not our people (nonEuropean, foreign), neither are Jews. If Jews are our people, then so are other Middle Easterners, to whom they are more genetically related than they are to us.

NormanBlood
Thursday, June 3rd, 2004, 12:36 AM
People that are not Franco/German/AngloSaxon but that are still European caucasoids have the same right to stay in America than the former.

And why do they have the same right? I didn't see Italians fighting in the war of independance..the American of the time was of British blood. I didn't see a Spaniard fight in the War of 1812. The French did not come in the "name of Europe". We did not colonise "for Europe"..it was for the French crown and for French benefits. The British never conquered Canada from the French "for Europe" either..the non-French/Brit contributions to North America could be easily replaced..and have not in the long run really been contributions. Its like the black slaves, ok they were slaves in America they "contributed"...so what? Can their contribution be compared to Fr./Brit. who put their existence on the line for the colonies? In reality those two groups, and to a lesser extent the Germans, have SHAPED NA history and it revolves around them..not others. The essence of NA is French and British, as far as I'm concerned others just really don't belong there. In fact I would be very happy to erase others contributions from this country ;)

Then people use NA's "multicultural roots" as an excuse...the French and British lived right across a damned channel from each other and had been at each others throats for centuries...I wouldn't exactly call it "multicultural"..and bringing others into the nations like that only brings in more "explainations" as to "why multiculturalism is justified"...first the Italians..then the Arabs...Keep our continent for those who won it.


I disagree. I think they would still be a burden in some way. I recommend repatriation back to Africa, and economic aid for a time to assist in their acclimation and in building infrastructure.

I agree, they should be sent back and they WOULD be a burden if they stayed. It would be just like now..they start out on the "outskirts" and "out of our way"(at least in Canada)..then they'll weasel their way into white society once more. Its bound to happen...just as all other groups have already done.

Personally itj ust pisses me off when I'm sitting in a CANADIAN IDENTITY class and all these arabs, greeks, russians, chinese or whatnot come in and call MY PEOPLE'S HISTORY THEIRS!..thats what really gets MY blood boiling.

Telperion
Thursday, June 3rd, 2004, 12:53 AM
I disagree. I think they would still be a burden in some way.

That would be an important issue to assess in determining what should be done. I was assuming they would be required to be self-sufficient, and not the beneficiaries of assistance from us.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Thursday, June 3rd, 2004, 12:56 AM
That would be an important issue to assess in determining what should be done. I was assuming they would be required to be self-sufficient, and not the beneficiaries of assistance from us.
Are you afraid of a race war?

Telperion
Thursday, June 3rd, 2004, 01:10 AM
Are you afraid of a race war?
War is inherently uncertain of outcome. Accordingly, it doesn't make sense to obtain your objectives through war, if they can be attained through less risky means. That doesn't mean you should shrink from war if there's no other way of getting what you want.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Thursday, June 3rd, 2004, 01:12 AM
Do you think they'll take our offer?

NormanBlood
Thursday, June 3rd, 2004, 01:14 AM
That would be an important issue to assess in determining what should be done. I was assuming they would be required to be self-sufficient, and not the beneficiaries of assistance from us.

Different peoples CANNOT live together, side by side without there being war or some form of conflict. The blacks would only "come through" again and cause trouble..that is what happens, history has proven this time and time again.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Thursday, June 3rd, 2004, 01:16 AM
Different peoples CANNOT live together, side by side without there being war or some form of conflict. The blacks would only "come through" again and cause trouble..that is what happens, history has proven this time and time again.
Precisely my point...

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Thursday, June 3rd, 2004, 01:17 AM
Blacks do not belong in North America. They complain about the climate and the society. They should leave.

Telperion
Thursday, June 3rd, 2004, 01:27 AM
Different peoples CANNOT live together, side by side without there being war or some form of conflict.
Then how could the British and French live side by side in Canada, without war, in your scenario? They were ancient enemies long before either of them had any regular contact with blacks. The differences between the British and French are ethnic and not racial, but intra-European wars by definition are between two ethnic groups of the same general race (Europid).

If you're right that different peoples can't live side by side without conflict, then I will adjust my position; those with British ancestry should remain here, and everyone else should leave. ;)

Preuße
Monday, September 20th, 2004, 11:20 PM
Of course, Europeans had any right to conquer and to populate America, because American Indians were to weak to protect it. They reached a low cultural stage of development, most wander around as Nomads or lived in loam huts (I mean North American Indians). Mans word reaches as far as his sword!

Germans also conquered and civilized great parts of central Europe and our great leader Hitler knew and wrote it down in his famous book “Mein Kampf” that all those, who preach pacifism forgot, that they eat wheat, which was planted in an area, that our ancestors had conquered and civilized.

I admit USA to occupy Iraq and to exploit Iraqi oil fields, as long Arabs are not able to defend their soil and resources. It is a law of nature, that only strong and adaptable reproduce themselves and that the weak will be extinct.

Awar
Monday, September 20th, 2004, 11:40 PM
Of course, Europeans had any right to conquer and to populate America, because American Indians were to weak to protect it. They reached a low cultural stage of development, most wander around as Nomads or lived in loam huts (I mean North American Indians). Mans word reaches as far as his sword!

Yeah, I agree with that.


Germans also conquered and civilized great parts of central Europe

If you mean the area which is now Germany, yeah I agree with that, even though this civilization came from a Roman source, transmitted by christianity :P


and our great leader Hitler knew and wrote it down in his famous book “Mein Kampf” that all those, who preach pacifism forgot, that they eat wheat, which was planted in an area, that our ancestors had conquered and civilized.

Okeydokey.


I admit USA to occupy Iraq and to exploit Iraqi oil fields, as long Arabs are not able to defend their soil and resources. It is a law of nature, that only strong and adaptable reproduce themselves and that the weak will be extinct.

See, now, this is a problem. It's much more complex than that.
Arabs definitely aren't weak, and USA isn't that strong either.
I'd make an analogy.

Let's say that a hunter wanted to kill a wild boar to eat him.
USA is the hunter, Iraq is the wild boar.

Preparations: Hunter tells everyone that this boar must be hunted down because another boar kicked the hunter in the testicles.

1. The hunter first sets fire to the entire forest.
2. The hunter stabs the boar with a blunt butter knife.
3. The hunter takes a bunch of invalids and blind men to help him.
4. The hunter ties the boar down and rapes it. ( the boar manages to kick the hunter in the testicles repeatedly ).
5. The hunter then cuts off pieces of the boar's ass and hands them to a Jew :D he himself dies of hunger and a testicle infection.

Preuße
Tuesday, September 21st, 2004, 12:59 AM
If you mean the area which is now Germany, yeah I agree with that, even though this civilization came from a Roman source, transmitted by christianity :PYes, I know that. I am living in the area of Cologne, a city, which was founded by Romans and I am not able to exclude, having Roman ancestors. German culture assumed many things of Roman controlled areas and via Christianity, Germans adopted more traditions and customs of ancient Rome. It is a fact, that German culture, as it is today, is a combination of Roman and Germanic Traditions. Nearly every civilization is a mixture of at least two civilizations, otherwise we still would live like nomads. In my opinion advance means, to take best achievements you may get, even if they are from your archenemy.
I meant current area of FRG, as long as Germans are able to hold it. If they are able to retrieve boarders of 1937 and also to keep them, they will also have the right to do so. At the moment Poland has every right to keep that area. Earth and all territories are like a challenge cup.


Okeydokey.I see, you do not like Hitler.;) I can respect that, but I think, that he is one of Germanys greatest sons (and probably the most famous). Not that much for what he did (he lost WWII) but more for what he stands (a united and strong Germany).


See, now, this is a problem. It's much more complex than that.
Arabs definitely aren't weak, and USA isn't that strong either.
I'd make an analogy.

Let's say that a hunter wanted to kill a wild boar to eat him.
USA is the hunter, Iraq is the wild boar.

Preparations: Hunter tells everyone that this boar must be hunted down because another boar kicked the hunter in the testicles.

1. The hunter first sets fire to the entire forest.
2. The hunter stabs the boar with a blunt butter knife.
3. The hunter takes a bunch of invalids and blind men to help him.
4. The hunter ties the boar down and rapes it. ( the boar manages to kick the hunter in the testicles repeatedly ).
5. The hunter then cuts off pieces of the boar's ass and hands them to a Jew :D he himself dies of hunger and a testicle infection.What you wrote about boars and testicles is impugn for what America conquered Iraq. But I did not mean their reasons, but more that USA has all rights to conquer what ever they want, as long as they can. If USA told us, that they wanted to occupy Iraq, because of its crude oil, I wont have said anything against their intention (I disdain lies, and so I disdain USA for the reasons they gave e.g. weapons of mass destruction, human rights etc.). I will modify the proverb, which I used before: Americas right reaches as far, as they are able to sprawl it. The only point of critic is, that America, in opposite to ancient Romans or Greeks, does not bring a real culture, but Barbarity like Genghis Khan – so mankind does not benefit.

Current Gulf War, is more a family duel, Bush vs. Saddam and Saddam was also a thorn in Israel´s side.

But as I told you, I just meant right of conquest generally spoken.

ThousandOnePains
Tuesday, September 21st, 2004, 01:00 AM
My American history might be a little rusty but didn't , the revolution between the european english and the american descendants from europe who became the colonial army fight against one another and didn't america win? I think they did :D . That justifies right there one incident of european right to be denied.

I would also point out yes the french helped out in the war as well but only as allies and if the french wanted america so badly why did they pull out of the lousiana purchase so quickly?

I must also point out that alot of the europeans that came to america were infact getting away from it due to persecutions. So in retro respect I think america has claimed many times that it is it's own country , but sees it's european peoples as allies , remembering where they came from.

I will also say the native americans , as I read from this topic before indeed migrated from asia and then in turn european peoples migrated from europe to a birth of a new country.


I know some who read this would say well your american it is only natural you defend your part. I in turn would say my family did not get to america until after the first world war from Germany, I just know my history very well.

I only speak for america, I am not sure about canada let someone else post about that and let it be there problem haha.


:D :) :bat

Awar
Tuesday, September 21st, 2004, 01:22 AM
@Preuße: Actually, I agree with what Hitler said there. Only, it's a bit different than he says it. His saying has a lot of truth in it, but only partially.

On what else you said, I agree totally.

Preuße
Tuesday, September 21st, 2004, 11:27 AM
My American history might be a little rusty but didn't , the revolution between the european english and the american descendants from europe who became the colonial army fight against one another and didn't america win? I think they did :D . That justifies right there one incident of european right to be denied.

I would also point out yes the french helped out in the war as well but only as allies and if the french wanted america so badly why did they pull out of the lousiana purchase so quickly?

I must also point out that alot of the europeans that came to america were infact getting away from it due to persecutions. So in retro respect I think america has claimed many times that it is it's own country , but sees it's european peoples as allies , remembering where they came from.

I will also say the native americans , as I read from this topic before indeed migrated from asia and then in turn european peoples migrated from europe to a birth of a new country.


I know some who read this would say well your american it is only natural you defend your part. I in turn would say my family did not get to america until after the first world war from Germany, I just know my history very well.

I only speak for america, I am not sure about canada let someone else post about that and let it be there problem haha.


:D :) :batColonial convocation tried to be represented in British Parliament, because many Settlers were exasperated for paying taxes, but not being appropriate represented in British House of Commons. On of their slogans was “No taxation without representation”. Those early settlers defined themselves as subjects of his British Majesty and they had not had their own national identity. As they saw, that it was impossible for them to send men to British Parliament, they thought about independence.

The question you have to ask is, can a group within a folk decide, that they wont belong to their own people anymore and be their own folk? Those settlers were of British origin and spoke English. From an objective point of view, they were still British, who resists to their Sovereign, because of political reasons.

Today situation in USA is different. Only a few will be of pure British ancestors. America turned into a melting pot for Europeans of all countries and also for men from Asia, Latin America and Africa. All of them demand to be part of American culture and part of American people. Considering mentality of independent fighters, they were right. US Founding Fathers defined USA as a nation, existing from people, who do not build a nation, because of their same descent, language or culture, but because of their subjective sake to be a nation. That includes Negroes, Jews, Asians and Hispanics. And even that is a problem for USA. They never defined, who belong to them and who do not. I have no doubt, that USA belongs to European culture, but with increasing immigration of Non-Europeans, that will be questioned, with unforeseeable consequences. If USA wants to keep their Anglo-Saxon character, they must, beside subjective definition, also put an objective nation definition and exclude Non-Europeans as citizen.

Canada is different from USA, they left British Empire peacefully and belong to British Commonwealth know. That means, that Her Majesty the Queen is still their head of state.

Test
Wednesday, September 22nd, 2004, 07:04 PM
North American Indians Were Only Mogoloid Colonizers From Asia

The North American Indian is not "indigenous" to this continent. Like Europeans, he came here as a colonizer. The fact that superior colonizers from Europe eventually pushed him aside is simply a fact of life - and history.

WF4E:D I hope all White North Americans will have this view, as it lays the legal groundwork for a later Mongoloid colonization of Europe in the next century. I'm being sarcastic, of course, to point out the faulty logic, or atleast logic that doesn't serve the overall Euro interest if you ponder about it.:D

Test
Wednesday, September 22nd, 2004, 07:14 PM
I think it's important to remember that Europeans just as well as the nomadic Mongoloid tribes, are both immigrants to North America; whether you came across on a ship or by a strait.

The cold hard fact is that Europeans, dominantly English, French & Spaniard, fought the Mongoloid's and settled this land to create lebensraum for their families and future generations. Fair and square! And I think it's fair to say that they would have done the same if the situation had been reversed, although I'm sure we wouldn't have any European minority special interest groups :P

Wasn’t it Darwin that said, “The strong survive and the weak perish.”You forget that the American Indian was really defeated by the European plague. The Conquistadores didn't defeat the Aztecs. The flu did. So, credit not superior Euros but a nice little virus. Oh well, all's fair in love and war.:~(
It's a shame though...The Mayas, Aztecs, and Incas had beautiful civilizations. It would've been interesting to see where they led. Speaking of which, anyone for a Maya homeland in bland/monotone Spanish-speaking Latin America?

Test
Wednesday, September 22nd, 2004, 07:24 PM
I agree with that, at least to the extent that any European group that came here and contributed something to building the country has a right to remain here. Ukrainians, for instance, were responsible for settling and building the infrastructure of a large portion of Western Canada, while Italians were instrumental in the post-war construction boom in many cities. If they were to be thrown out, one could say they ought to tear down everything they built here before going back to Europe.

It's also interesting to compare the contributions of these European groups, who actually helped to build North America, to a lot of the so-called 'refugees' from Asia and Africa today who simply parasitize off of public funds, while 'contributing' illegal drug sales and gang violence. These are the people who should be expelled expeditiously.Actually Asians account for a large section of people who found tech companies and research personel on U.S. campuses, companies, and even government facilities. They actually contribute to the welfare jar that people on StormFront take out of.
Top post: When I say European plague/disease, I mean it in a joking, figurative way, of course.

Tripredacus
Friday, September 24th, 2004, 01:24 AM
I do not have the information handy at the moment, but I have this book.

It says something how the original companies (the Virginia Company, etc) who had originally "owned" all of the land within the United States were actually themselves owned by European companies/people. When the land was then sold to individual people, the original contracts with those companies were not changed, but the name of the person owning it had changed. Something like how the deed was a separate type of thing than who actually owned the land.

Which slightly makes sense (because I am trying to recall this from memory) because it also makes you wonder. If you can buy a piece of land, is it really yours? Because, IIRC, no matter what you own, the government can find a way of taking it from you.

I will try to find the information in the book, but my friend has it at the moment.

Telperion
Friday, September 24th, 2004, 01:50 AM
If you can buy a piece of land, is it really yours? Because, IIRC, no matter what you own, the government can find a way of taking it from you.
In a common law country, the form of land ownership that affords you as an individual the most extensive property rights is an estate in fee simple, "for time in the land without end". However, underlying title to the land remains vested in the state, which is the source of the state's power of "eminent domain", i.e. to confiscate private land for state purposes. In the United States, there is a constitutional right to fair monetary compensation to the private landowner for any such regulatory takings.

Telperion
Friday, September 24th, 2004, 01:58 AM
Actually Asians account for a large section of people who found tech companies and research personel on U.S. campuses, companies, and even government facilities. That may be true, as far as East Asians are concerned, though it is not likely that many of these economic investors entered North America under the immigration status of "refugees". Since "Asian" as a geographic term includes not only all East Asians, but also everyone from South and Southwest Asia (though that is more broadly than the term "Asian" is used in the US), I would question the extent to which (presumably wealthy) East Asian investors in US high-tech companies etc. are representative of the economic contribution of Asian migrants to North America as a whole, and even the extent to which they are representative of the contribution of East Asian migrants specifically.

Tripredacus
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 08:05 PM
OK I found the information about who may own the United States.

"In 1604, a group of leading politicians, businessmen, merchants, manufacturers and bankers, met in Greenwich, then in the England county of Kent, and formed a corporation called the Virginia Company in anticipation of the imminent influx of white Europeans, mostly British at first, into the North American continent. Its main stockholder was King James I, and the original charter for the company was completed by April 10th, 1606. This and later updates to the charter established the following:

-The Virginia Company comprised of two branches, the London Company and the Plymouth or New England Company. The former was responsible for the first permanent colony in America at Jamestown on May 14, 1607 and the latter were the so-called 'Pilgrim Fathers' who arrived at Cape Cod in the ship the Mayflower, in November 1620, and went on to land in Plymouth Harbour on December 21. The 'Pilgrims' of American historical myth were, in fact, members of the second Virginia Company branch called the New England Company.

-The Virginia Company owned most of the land of what we now call the USA, and any lands up to 900 miles offshore. This includes Bermuda and most ofwhat is now known as the Caribbean Islands. The Virginia Company had rights to 50% of the ore of all gold and silver mined on its lands, plus percentages of other minerals and raw materials, and 5% of all profits from other ventures. These rights, the charters detailed, were to be passed on to all heirs of the owners of the Virginia Company and therefore continue to apply. The controlling members of the Virginia Company who were to enjoy these rights became known as the Treasurer and Company of Adventurers and Planters of the City of London.

//

-The lands of the Virginia Company were granted to the colonies under a Deed of Trust (on lease) and therefore they could not claim ownership of the land. They could pass on the perpetual use of the land to their heirs or sell the perpetual use, but they could never own it. Ownership was retained by the British Crown."

"After the original 13 American colonies won their 'independence' and an 'independent' country was formed after 1783, the Virginia Company simply changed its name to the United States."

"The British Crown owns the lands of the united states and the land and institutions of the United States, including the Internal Revenue Service which collects the taxation and the Federal Reserve Board, the privately owned 'central bank' of America which lends the government money that doesn't exist and charges the taxpayers interest on it."

"On October 3, 1213, King John, as 'King of England Corporation Sole,' claimed autonomy over all the sovereign rights of England and assigned them to the Pope, who, as Vicar of Christ, claimed dominion over the whole world. In return, the Pope granted executiveship to the English Crown over all these dominions."

Sources withheld.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Thursday, May 31st, 2018, 06:40 AM
Actually, yes. Germanic folks are native to North America. Iceland is a North American land, but it was discovered by Celts from the Faroe Islands, likewise which earlier became wholly Germanic. In the same fashion, Greenland and Newfoundland were settled as an expansion of Icelandic population, until the Eskimos and Indians committed genocide against them. When Denmark took Greenland and England took Newfoundland, it revived Germanic lebensraum, since all the Scandinavian lands were ruled by Cnut the Great of England at the time when Greenland and Vinland were settled. Iceland, like the Faroes, was settled earlier in the time of Alfred the Great.

Italian navigators get too much credit, along with the focus of the world on Latin America as some kind of "happening" place. The truth is, that Latins owe their independence to Germanics, since America was the first to achieve it--admittedly, with the sagas as inspiration.

Wuotans Krieger
Thursday, November 29th, 2018, 07:54 PM
Actually, yes. Germanic folks are native to North America. Iceland is a North American land, but it was discovered by Celts from the Faroe Islands, likewise which earlier became wholly Germanic. In the same fashion, Greenland and Newfoundland were settled as an expansion of Icelandic population, until the Eskimos and Indians committed genocide against them. When Denmark took Greenland and England took Newfoundland, it revived Germanic lebensraum, since all the Scandinavian lands were ruled by Cnut the Great of England at the time when Greenland and Vinland were settled. Iceland, like the Faroes, was settled earlier in the time of Alfred the Great.

Italian navigators get too much credit, along with the focus of the world on Latin America as some kind of "happening" place. The truth is, that Latins owe their independence to Germanics, since America was the first to achieve it--admittedly, with the sagas as inspiration.

I must take issue regarding your comment about Iceland. It is incorrect to state that Iceland is a "North American land". It is located in the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and thus partly in North America and partly in Europe and culturally it belongs only to Europe.

Æmeric
Friday, November 30th, 2018, 03:48 PM
Iceland is closer to the North American Shelf then the European but is considered part of Europe for historical & cultural reasons. It was uninhabited when settled by the Norse/Celts. The Azores & Canary Islands are also considered part of Europe though the latter are much closer to Africa.

As for the thread title, "Do Europeans Have Claim to North America?" the logical answer is YES! It is our's by conquest. Most of what we took from defeated tribes was land those tribes acquired by committing genocide against other tribes. The Cherokees depopulated much of what is the South & conducted a flourishing slave trade in American Indians who were shipped out via Charleston along the Eastern Seaboard of America & the Caribbean. There was the Beaver Wars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Wars) in the which the Iroquois turned much of what is now the north central US into a hunting preserve. We gained North America through armed conquest which is how every territory was acquired by every nation. But we are losing it through a new type of conquest one based on political propositions & demographics.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Sunday, July 5th, 2020, 02:11 AM
Q & R descendants of Y-DNA haplogroup P have mutual claim to both Americas, whether the Pacific or Atlantic catchments. To simplify things, Alaska being the most obvious point of entry for Q from Siberia, should be an independent Amerindian reservation country and the rest the exclusive province of Indogermanics, being that they're all mostly R anyway. Since the Philippines is where P originated, it's also common sense that Hawaii should belong to Q & R. Just being fair.

Winterland
Monday, July 6th, 2020, 12:55 AM
I have had the experience to talk with Natives locally about Indian living when the "White" man came with their "warriors" and "won" the lands from various wars. Some tribes see the Scot-Irish as "excellent warriors" that fought bravely against them, but they had sorrows in losing their lands. I was surprised to hear various stories told in this manner by Midwestern tribes on the plains. They told me accounts that the Chinese or Japanese would have eventually ruled their lands if the "White" man had not made earlier claims. The Asians had a worse history of eradicating their own indigenous peoples under Mao and the Shogun periods. Some Indians also said many tribes fought terribly and were disorganized, so they could not develop a larger Army to protect their vast territories. A few older Natives warned me to not believe the media, but their lands are still under their ancestral "spirits." At heart, it is always their land regardless of the government in power. When I speak to them, I can almost hear our ancient ancestors speaking with a different understanding of life and working lands to survive. I thought I share some words spoken to me over hours of conversation from Elder tribesman discussing the conflict of living off and on the reservation.

Astragoth
Wednesday, July 8th, 2020, 05:17 PM
Iceland is closer to the North American Shelf then the European but is considered part of Europe for historical & cultural reasons. It was uninhabited when settled by the Norse/Celts. The Azores & Canary Islands are also considered part of Europe though the latter are much closer to Africa.

As for the thread title, "Do Europeans Have Claim to North America?" the logical answer is YES! It is our's by conquest. Most of what we took from defeated tribes was land those tribes acquired by committing genocide against other tribes. The Cherokees depopulated much of what is the South & conducted a flourishing slave trade in American Indians who were shipped out via Charleston along the Eastern Seaboard of America & the Caribbean. There was the Beaver Wars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Wars) in the which the Iroquois turned much of what is now the north central US into a hunting preserve. We gained North America through armed conquest which is how every territory was acquired by every nation. But we are losing it through a new type of conquest one based on political propositions & demographics.

Why would I need to justify myself to indians? I don't need to justify myself to them anymore than I need to justify myself to my cat. Pretty much from the moment we set foot on this continent indians were a plague on white people.
Their favorite hobby was "lets kidnap the teenage white girl". There was a reason we got rid of them and rightly so.