View Single Post
Old April 4th, 2019 #5
joeylowsac
RaHoWarrior-SKINHEAD
 
joeylowsac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Shingletown, CA
Posts: 1,625
Blog Entries: 59
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdFire View Post
Thanks my American brother . . . up-thumbee given



So you do not subscribe to the 'Blut und Boden' ( Blood and soil ) theory ?

That theory is disputed.

I'll quote an old post of mine from the 'anti-americanism'-thread


https://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=551671
I didn't mean to give the impression that I was advancing some philosophical justification regarding land rights. That would actually be the opposite of my point. Which was that whatever may or may not be true of such philosophical speculations, if we are to keep the land it will require force not philosophy.
Only force rules. Force is the first law. - Adolf Hitler

I am connected to the land. On any day of the year I know where the sun will rise and set on the horizon. But no invader will be turned back by that. The land shaped the lives of my ancestors. It sustained the lives of those who gave life to those who gave to me. It has sustained me and shaped my life and the lives of my kids and some day their kids as well.
But only if we can keep hold of it. At the end of the day, the only thing that determines whose land it is, is whose troops are on it.
Only force rules. Force is the first law. - Adolf Hitler

I had some questions (indicated below by arrows). I never saw the thread which your post came from and on its own it's just a list of unqualified assertions.
~First, twice I'm told of Europeans fighting fair and winning but with victory as the only clue and so many battles (I've included a partial list below), how should I know which is is being referenced? Are two incidents being referenced or just one referenced twice? It should be noted however, fairness was not a contemporary concern on either side.
~Next (the RED arrow), having superior numbers and weapons is mentioned (which would arguably make the fighting unfair). Presumably meaning the Europeans. This is incorrect. For almost the first century and a half the Indians far outnumbered the colonists. Nor were they out gunned for long. The Indian took to the rifle and the horse like they were born to it. It is hard to imagine the Plains Indian without either.
~Lastly (the blue arrows), what seems to be the main thesis, that the creation of a State (an administrative unit) some how strengthens a land claim. While I don't see how bureaucracy imparts anything significant. Being a product necessity, it mostly signifies an increase in the number of people who make a living sitting on their backsides.
Anyway, in the case of the colonists the 'State' theory is anachronistic. The colonies were all Charter Colonies (There were three kind. Corporate, Proprietary and Royal). Charter Colonies were in every case financial ventures and if they failed to make a profit their charter could be revoked. Corporate Charters (e.g., Virginia and Massachusetts) operated without any interference from The Crown, the closest thing to a government they were connected to was the company stakeholders. None can be considered States until after the success of the Colonial Revolt in 1776. Even then they were only defacto presumptive States as the federal government had yet to be formed. Which meant that they weren't technically States of anything yet.

On the conquest of North America.
The charge of 'stealing the land' requires no defense as it was common and accepted practice at the time. Neither side ever concerned themselves with being fair. The Indians had no reservations (no pun intended) about stealing land, they would even steal people off the land whenever they had the opportunity. The danger was so common that it gave rise to an entire genre of literature known as 'the captive narrative'.
Neither the French, Spanish, British or Dutch were ever short of tribes anxious to be allies, though they never missed an opportunity to play one off the other. But their main concern was usually in fighting their traditional enemies among the other Indians.
The largest acquisition of land (the Louisiana Purchase in 1803) wasn't won through fighting the Indians but was purchased from France. By which time fighting and disease had emptied much of the land of Indians.
The Native Americans had not technologically progressed beyond the Stone Age when the colonists arrived. They dressed only in animal skins (when they wore anything at all). They had no writing, no metal, no textiles, no domesticated animals, not even the wheel. They were very primitive. But they were quick to take up technology when it became available.

__________________
卐 White ⊕ Power 卐