When you say colonists do you mean the people who came here to commit genocide? No, I don't think anyone would be in favor of rewarding them.

Might also help to remember the first Native American casino was built in 1979 (after two defeats in lower courts and a unanimous Supreme Court decision, not really giving, right?). Total time from Jamestown to 1979 is 362 years.

How do you know the "Native Americans" were really Native Americans? Maybe some other Native Americans were here before them and the "Native Americans" savagely wiped them out? I can't prove that it's true, but you can't prove that it isn't. If that were the case, then the "Native Americans" aren't really Native Americans.

Had the goal been "genocide" it was a miserable failure. Many more Native Americans are alive today than before 1600, when the plains Indians were hunting buffalo with arrows and spears, on foot (no horses until the Spanish brought them to this continent.)

Some Indian tribes used to routinely butcher each other. War paint and scalping dead enemies were their inventions, before Europeans came on the scene. And yes, they captured women and children as slaves or concubines.

One of the reasons the Ojibwe (Chippewa) have never been at war with Europeans is that they were allies against the Dakota (Sioux,) who were known as fierce warriors.

Some tribes were known as being more peaceful, like the Navajo, Ojibwe, and Hopi. Others were known as dangerous warriors, like the Dakota and Cheyenne. Definitely, all Indians were not alike, just like all Europeans were not all alike. This notion that all Indians were innocent, peaceful victims and all westward-expanding Europeans were bad people is silly.

And a previous poster has it right. If you look at all conquered peoples throughout the known history of the world, the American Indian came out best.

People have taken land with the World's ok in a lot lesser manner than how the U.S came across their land.

So total time from jamestown is 362 years..and 400 years from now the casinos will still be there....so no idea what your point is ..if its by number of years...you then mean its ok if casinos are allowed for the next 400 years....its a fake argument..

North america was not organized ...open borders is not a country....of course rivers in america were 'discovered' by other people before certain people 'discovered' them like hernando de soto ....its who organized it first...


So warring indian tribes that took land from other indian tribes need to give that land back as well.....some land in which casinos were built on may of been owned by an older tribe 200 years earlier but lost a war that they did not start......

Right..the way i look at it...what advances the human race

eventually the sun (already lived half its life) will die and all life on earth will die....so if we lived off the earth like native americans....thats a death sentence eventually....we need to get into space....of course native americans wont nuke each other either...

I can't tell if this is tongue in cheek or not. Are you suggesting that if Europeans never conquered the Americas that in a billion+ years 1) the indigenous people never would have come up with advanced technology & 2) that somehow Europeans & Asians wouldn't have eventually figured out space travel?

we dont know...however if the indians did come up with advanced technology, are you saying they wouldnt take the chance to take over land from another culture that didnt? It goes on and on...

If it took 6 billion years to come up with space travel, the sun is burning out in 5 billion years by the way..

Thus, bird in the hand, the culture that can get the human race off earth and avoid extinction I will take over the the wait of another culture. At least I would not vilify the culture that can lead man to space and other issues that advance the human species. Its not like Indians became extinct now, far from it.

Not sure what you mean about Asians and Europeans who are already part of space travel but yeah i would support them too if they were the ones in North America first and created their own country at expense of the Native Americans..

I'm sure Indians would have taken land from others but that has nothing to do with what I'm asking about. My point about Asians & Europeans is simply that their technology advanced rapidly independent of what was going on in Americas. The father of the US space program grew up in Germany & if he never went to the States he would have practiced his craft somewhere in Europe. Basically I'm saying that if it was European brain power in the US that led to space travel then those same minds could have done the same thing if they never left Europe.

The sun will become too hot for earth far sooner than five billion years. Even so, once European civilization reached the technological level of the first century Romans it only took about 2,000 years to reach space. The Incas were pretty close to that level as were the Maya & Aztecs. It was Europeans who put an end to their progress (for the Incas and Aztecs, at least).

Just wondering if all of what you say here makes what the citizens of the United States did to the Native Americans in the 1800's right?

Sort of a loaded question, were Native Americans in every corner of North America? Were Colonists allowed to have some land. what amount of land would you agree they could have? What if the indians did not agree? War is a political way to solve issues.

Should Germany have their land, What about Rome, what about every country in which there was an indigenous people before it..

Aliens come down with superior weapons and take over earth..i guess 5000 yeas later we can argue if what they did was right too........

Right what if we have 200 years to get off of earth as we see a huge asteroid (can come up with other huge problems that maybe technology would stave off ) coming due to technology such as the use of telescope that indians did not have...if have 200 years, you think we can rely on indian space technology and wait a few thousand years.......bird in the hand versus 2 in the bush........which culture has best chance to save the human race.in those 200 years...you dont know if we will have the benefit of waiting 2000 years..

Isn't it rather simplistic to lump all US citizens in one group, lump all Native Americans in another group, then play them off against each other?

Many US citizens and Native Americans got along quite well. US citizens brought horses and rifles to the Indians, making it easier and safer to hunt. They brought written language to preserve Native American history. Have you ever wondered why most of the earliest Native Americans we know about lived in the 1800s, like Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull, Little Crow, and so on? Those who lived before have largely been lost to history because of the lack of written language.

The Ojibwe had a famine crisis every winter, until Europeans taught them to parch their rice so it would last through the winter. European medicines extended life expectancy. And US citizens ended what had been constant raiding and warfare between various tribes.

Look at the attached picture. Before Europeans came to this continent, Native Americans hadn't even invented the wheel; they used travois instead, and before horses came to the continent, they were pulled by hand.

Take all of it together. The US citizens treated the Native Americans better than any "conquerers" in history. Better than Ghengis Khan treated his conquered, better than Alexander treated his, better than PolPot, Hitler, Caesar, Hannibal, and so on.

In fact, it wasn't even a "conquering." It was a melding.

agree..and your comments about written language is what I was commenting about first to organize things. Not the first but first to discover a river etc .

I think we are lucky that the U.S was the first country to have the nuclear weapon, what if it was Iran?

Ghengis Khan was in many ways - especially for his time - a benevolent ruler.
The immediate conquering was very harsh, but once a city was part of the Mongol empire they were allowed to keep their religion, usually local form of government (Not the original rules, they were usually the first to go)
Crafts people were held on esteem, as well as the literate.
Contemporary accounts of traveling to China from Europe say the mongo empire was very peaceful. While the journey across Europe was perilous due to bandits and "difficult" feudal lords, the travel from eastern Europe all the way to China was entirely uneventful.

Sometimes I picture Ghengis and Cobb sitting down griping about what a raw deal they got from history.

Slaves on plantations tended to be peaceful too. What choice was there?

If some of these conquered people stepped out of line......... I wonder how "benevolent" Ghengis Khan would've been then.

I've never heard Khan, one of the worst butchers of innocents who ever lived, defended so eloquently. I guess I focus on the The immediate conquering was very harsh part, and the realization that living under such a ruler was only "peaceful" as long as one accepted the fact he was now a conquered slave.

Cobb got a raw deal from history. Ghengis Khan was one of its worst mass murderers. That his conquered saw resistance as futile doesn't mean they were happy or content.

Changing the name is a good start.
As a white guy, I have no real say in the matter. all I can do is listen to native americans who say "hey, that depiction of my culture is offensive to me." Who am I to say, "no it isnt?" All I know, if there was a team called the New York Heebs, and the logo was a stereotypical jewish person, it would offend me.

furthermore, "those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."