Right there with you, only it's Lakota for me. My mother's mother was half. The rest of me is Irish/Scots/English/German

>I see. No, I never meant to imply that I thought it was right or moral or even acceptable. Only that it was customary at that time. I do have a different perspective and one that is not shared by my relatives. I've mentioned this in the past, but I have relatives who live on the reservation. If everyone who took land by force had to return to their native soil, I'd be in a tough place. I am part Ojibwa and could justify living on the reservation and staying here, although I spent time there as a child and that is the LAST place I would live. However, my other ancestors are from Norway, England, and Germany. Where should I go exactly? Or better yet, go ahead and pay the Native Americans back for the injustices done to them and I just may reap the benefits :o)
>
>
>>It isn't. I'm not arguing your statement about the winners get the spoils, that's patently obvious. What I'm picking at (and yes, I'll admit I'm picking the nit) is, what appears to be, your acceptance that this is right. That it happened and has been condoned by history (that the winners wrote) is fact, and I'm not arguing that it didn't happen, but the mere fact that it did happen does not make it right, no matter how loudly the winners proclaim it to be so. It was not right when it happened here, it was not right when it happened anywhere else that Europeans set foot in this world 'civilizing the locals'.
>>
>>My point is that all these 'gather up the illegals and deport them' breast-thumpers and standing on very shaky ground when the country they're talking about deporting them from was created by illegal immigrants.
>>
>>>I still disagree. I will repeat the same truth I've stated before: most of the world was settled by war(s) - the winners got the spoils. Is it any worse than what has occurred throughout history? The rape, pillaging, and total destruction of everyone that took place in Ireland, England, Europe, Africa, Australia, India, and most of the world? How is it any worse or any different?
>>>
>>>
>>>>In the strictest definition, they were. They weren't invited. That they 'won' and got to write their own version of history is beside the point.
>>>>
>>>>Ask the Mexicans how they feel about Texas sometime. Here they were kind enough to allow American settlers in until those same settlers started rocking the boat. Then Mexico restricted immigration, so the Americans just came in illegally and eventually took the land away from them. In Texas, it's the Fight for Independence - in Mexico, it's Land Theft. Maybe they should have just gathered the Americans up and deported them. Oh wait, that's Jay and Johns argument, isn't it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>They were not illegal immigrants. The Indian Nations didn't think in terms of European land ownership and personal property. (not to stir up another debate, but the most of the world was settled by war(s) - the winners got the spoils)
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Yup, that would be the ones.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm not clear on who (in U.S. history that allowed other immigrants in) you consider illegal immigrants? Are you referring those who settled here when only the American Indian Nations resided here?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Again, though, one could make the argument that illegal immigrants allowing other immigrants in doesn't make the second group legal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Kinda like someone breaking into your house and inviting all their neighborhood over for a party. Whom do you have arrested? Beyond that though, you throw everyone else out of your house.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>My point being that the 'original settlers' were illegal immigrants and for those saying that they would deport anyone who had illegal immigrants in their ancestory, my question was "How far back are you willing to go?" and Jay, rather than answering the question, decided to try to twit me on history.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Actually he is correct to a point. Other than the Chinese exclusion law of 1882, Congress passed the very first Immigration Quota Act of 1921 and the even more restrictive Immigration Act of 1924.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Up until then it was a free for all and no immigration (other than Chinese) was illegal.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Here is an interesting timeline:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>http://www.ellisislandimmigrants.org/ellis_island_immigrants.htm
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not really clear on your history. Most were legal immigrants. Knowing that now, do you stand by your post as it is?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>um....no, no they weren't. To be a legal immigrant, you need permission of those people already residing in the area you will be moving to. Last time I checked, there was no permission given, just area taken. And please don't bring up the purchase of Manhattan island.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>So, if you really want to get steely bottomed on this, how far back are you willing to go?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Again, you're wrong. They were allowed in. It's not the same no matter how often you say it is.
>>>>>>>>>>Who allowed them? Themselves?