Featured Population bomb and cars

Settlers and founders displaced natives without permission

 

"Native" is a loaded term. In fact all humans descend from immigrants, either recently or in the past.

 

Agreed. So when did we decide that migration should be limited, after we got here?

 

If I move to a country that already exists, I have immigrated to it.

If I found and settle a country, and I pre-exist that country, I can't also have immigrated into it.

 

You immigrated to the country that existed before your arrival. Invaded is probably the better term though.

 

Man you hit home for me a lot. I think you'd have to find out what part of the country that new home ad is from and if the neighborhood was a development of that era ( like Levittown as a semi famous one)
Levittown - US History Scene
Down and dirty, 5 kids lived in the house I grew up in, it was a 30s prefab 4 bedroom one bath on a 100x100 ft (sqft) lot with 100 ft canal waterfront. I'm the owner of the pictures of its construction. Nothing extra special about it from my point of view, since there were plenty of houses in every direction that offered more and a few that offered much more. And neighborhoods on two sides that were near gated level.
Anyway, the house was sold in 77' for 60K I was told. After moving to the upper midwest within 3 years the value had risen to 200K circa 80'. Currently or last listed value is 900K. I often wonder if the magic marker name I put on my bedroom hardwood floor when I was 8 or 10 is still there.

 

In the context of the US settling and founding, that is not correct. There was no country here, but there were colonies of a mother country. That there were other people here doesn't mean they were organized into a country.

The sentiment that everyone in the US is an immigrant or a descendant of immigrants may have a benevolent intent to elide the differences amongst the legal status of different people, doesn't work where a population creates a country. That need not cast doubt on the value of all subsequent immigration.

As to the colonial and post colonial populations displaced and/or assimilated other populations might be more accurate.

 

I disagree. There were goverments and countries here. Just because they didn't follow the European way of doing things doesn't mean they weren't countries.

This falls into the prejudice that Europeans had against all other civilizations, claiming that anything that didn't follow their philosophies were pagan, barbaric and uncivilized. This way of thinking has been handed down to us for generations but is greatly flawed.

 

Native American Nations. The US government even has treaties with some of them.

 

Correct, nations, not countries.

You are free to, and we can do it civilly, because we have ideas about how people can disagree we brought with us from europe. You can assertion that north american tribes had countries, but you would have to elasticize the term to mean a borderless area in which one or another group might roam around in or have some settlements within, something more like a range.

It isn't because they didn't do things the european way. Indian, Chinese and Japanese people had territorial sovereign governments at times in their history, and we can recognize that. Similarly we can recognize that the tribal authorities of Afghanistan and the punjabi regions of Pakistan aren't "countries" in any ordinary sense.

In north america, there were considerable differences in structure and character amongst the populations with some eastern groups assimilating relatively easily. Most americans with some north american tribal ancestry, people in midwestern and western states, don't self identify as members of a separate culture or ethnic group, have euro names and religious denominations and are sociologically indistinguishable from their neighbors with no tribal ancestry. It wasn't just Elizabeth Warren.

Where a colonial population that has settled an area not yet a country and founds its own sovereign government, calling the people who created it immigrants to it misuses the word or misunderstands the history. Even if you really believe that one tribe or another had something approximating a country, that isn't what founding americans lived under, so they still wouldn't be immigrants.

Immigrant Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

One can't have immigrated to a country that didn't exist.

 

The populations here before Europeans made it to the Americas had countries. Nations is the same thing, to-may-to, to-mah-to. They had boarders, just like in Europe. What they didn't have were fire arms, or the same ability to acquire them at least. That, and those that came to what is now the USA were influenced by those who thought that the native population was predestined to hell anyway, so they had no qualms about massacring them, whereas Central and South America were controlled by those who felt that all humans should be converted to Christianity, even though they developed a cast society that had no qualms with repressing natives.

We're talking about one of the bloodiest and saddest parts of history, comparable to the Crusades or the Holocaust. And here we are, trying to nitpick the English language to justify why it's okay for one person to come on someone else's land and brutally slaughter them in order to take possession of it while condemning another person who comes to someone else's land just to peacefully seek a better life.

Most of the teachings of doing things peacefully came from the Middle East. Teachings like "love your neighbor," "love your enemy," "be a good Samaritan" (treat people of other ethnicities like you would your own) "doing to others what you'd want them to do to you" were all from Asia.

That's not to say there weren't peaceful Europeans back then. But there were many peaceful Native American tribes too, only to be brought to extinction by fellow man.

 

Duplicate

 

An ambiguous phrase. As if the native Indians were not people.

They can hardly be called peaceful.
Having received weapons from the Europeans who arrived on the land of America, the Indian tribes often destroyed each other.

 

Ambiguous? "Fellow man" means they aren't people? Men aren't people? What!?

So all Native Americans were warmongers? Not one tribe was peaceful? Were they worse than the Europeans who also fought brutal wars amongst each other? It sounds like you're also trying to find excuses why it was "okay" to try to massacre all of them.

 

No, there is a difference between a nation and a country. "Nation" will typically describe a population, while "country" incorporates the idea of a geographical territory. You can be voted into the Kwakwaka’wakw nation or be born into a federally recognized tribe, but those aren't geographic concepts. A member of a federally recognized tribe doesn't lose his trial membership if he moves to another state.

The DDR was a country even though you didn't need to be german to fall within it's jurisdiction. A border guard would shoot someone trying to escape into West Berlin even of that person were an american or a pole even though neither would be a part of the DDR in the tribal sense.

Noting that not all americans are descended from immigrants isn't offered for either purpose, and reasoning through what the core terms mean is pretty far from nit picking.

Since congress didn't seek membership for us in any of the various tribal nations, a sense that we somehow immigrated into those tribal identities seems factually incorrect.

 

Are Americans having more children?
Some big families down here at Disney

 

If you look at geneological material in the middle of the 19th century, five to eight living children looks average. You see also a lot of children who died before they were even named.

I think I know three families with five children now, and I think of that as large.

 

Same here. We’re seeing 4,5,6 regularly

 

This is still nitpicking semantics. Basically there are two types of people that migrate, those that immigrate and those that conquer. I'm not saying that people should immigrate illegally. But I don't think the Conquistadors were exactly the kind of neighbor you wanted moving in next door either.

You can justify conquering and massacring the Americas because the dictionary says there was no country here, if that's what you want to do. To me it's still hypocritical to think that it was okay to migrate here from Europe but it's not okay to migrate from Latin America.

 

I seem to remember slavery was legal in the US back then too...but in not now. Illegal immigration...is illegal.