Here we go again....

In my opinion you make an error that might not be catagorizable by one category, but lies at least in part in the "ethnocentrism" area.

I think you ethnocentrically assume that "Nations" are the important thing and that people who self-declare they are a nation can then self-pronounce the rights that they have an deserve as a nation, such as ground or property. People who have not self-pronounced themselves as a "Nation," therefore do not have rights to ground or property, even by dint of occupying said ground or property.

John Locke said that property is a right given by God to human beings. It is not, therefore, in the authority of the British to self-declare that they nullify God's rights for Indians.

Your 'opinion' is irrelevant in relation to historical accuracy. Nothing in my post was a lie. If you have ever read any historical document, you'd know that.

If what you say is true, then the Roman Empire didn't really exist, the Anglos and Saxons didn't really rule the British Isles, the Ottomans weren't really trying to spread Islam into Europe......my, my! It seems there are plenty of examples throughout man's history that refute your claim.

But you missed the whole point of my post. NONE of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, the document that was the first building block to form this nation, were alien to this land. Not a single one of them. They were not immigrants at all.

You do not have to like how the colonies were formed but you do have to accept that they did exist as historical fact. To do otherwise is to deny that this country exists at all.

Yes the Indians did own the land and had recognizable borders that were
known to the different tribes. There was unified government in each
tribe not for all the tribes - if you wer looking for and Indian U.N. it did
not exist. There obviously was Indian nations, was their Indian states
that is a good question.

"So how can something be stolen if it isn't owned by anyone?"

This is ridiculous. So, you believe in squatters' rights. So if immigrants
come into the U.S. and don't recognize our property laws they have the
right to own the land and your house - ridiculous now ridiculous then.

on lying? There was no unified indian nation then and they claimed they did not own the land. Get your facts straight or is that too much to ask? Btw, seems you are the racist when you deny historical facts and twist our history to your 'vision'. We now have control of the land and of course no illegal has the right to make any claim on our sovereign nation. OOOOO...there's a word that eludes you-sovereign! Look it up!

You need to know the difference between a nation and a state:
http://geography.about.com/cs/politicalgeog/a/statenation.htm

There were hundreds of Indian nations and possibly no Indian states,
in that, they might or might not have been recognized by the
newcomers. (Note the use of tribe in the definition is for tribes in
Iraq, not the misnamed Indian "tribes" - hence the Sioux nation)

The Wampanoags were a nation
So were the Sioux, Oneida, Aleuts, ad infinitum.
It is interesting your grasp on trespassing - if sovereignty is what your
definition depends on then the European settlers were trespassing on
Indian nations land.

The facts you will find are in my favor. Read 1491 by Mann on a
readable comprehensive work of the new world before and after
"discovery". Of course what is done is done but should not be forgotten
or misremembered to support a political agenda.

NO UNIFIED nation...that part is true. And that was the whole point I made. Guess you missed that point. And talk about misremembered for a political agenda...isn't that YOUR tactic???

but how does that prove anything?
So there were 500 unified sovereign nations not one.
I guess I miss your point - especially how your definition is meaningful
unless you will look at history only one way - i.e.
"But there was no unified form of government between these tribes, no borders, no written laws, no currency-in short, nothing that established an Indian nation on this land."

I fail to see why there has to be a unified govenrment "between" tribes.
How is that more important when you are dealing with 2 separate
sovereign nations?
Again there were recognized borders, some were disputed.
Laws and mores were known and practiced.
Barter was practiced.
There were at least 500 nations, probably more in what would become
the US. There is even a book called _500 Nations_ about Indian history
which does not even make an argument that the tribes were nations
because it is assumed.

That your argument seems to hinge on the necessity of a single unified
nation does not make sense. If it does, I'd need it explained.

"However, that is just the way things were done then-you stake a claim on something no one owns and it is yours. "

No, you miss the point you staked your claim on something someone
else owned and made it yours. This is different and historically accurate.
How important is debatable.

The 500 nations did make claim to the land for their use.
Although of course this differed from tribe to tribe just as land use
today differs from house to house - you have a garden, he never cuts
his lawn, she has three acres of forest, etc.

I am not wasting my time with you. It is blatantly clear that you are incapable of learning, therefore, your twisted version of our history is moot.

or can't clarify why there had to be a single unified Indian nation?
Why isn't 500 unified nations good enough?

It is interesting that you also don't back up your points with proof other
than I told you so. I have listed 2 works to your none. 1491 is the
popular history work on the subject and takes into account all sorts of
theories of how Indians lived. It should be the leading work on the
subject for some years. Check it out.

You offer no proof and can't counter my arguments with evidence.

I guess I was wasting time, turns out you're a proud American who
can't use evidence to prove the history they believe.

I'm a proud American too, but I try to get as accurate history of the past
as possible. You should too.

Looks like this Wampanaog Indian knows about nationhood and
sovereignty too, Glenn Marshall, "One sovereign Indian Nation":

"All that we do, and all that we will pursue, can be summed up in one word: sovereignty.

Indians have a long history of nationhood. We governed ourselves, here on these shores, for thousands of years. After greeting the Pilgrims, we tried to keep our nation together despite being, from time to time, close to extinction."

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/08/18/one_sovereign_indian_nation/

I liked your comments on one of the Columns today. You make an interesting case about the nations Founders not being immigrants. I know that in some cases we made treaties with existing tribes to occupy lands. Manhatten Island and the Quakers in PA come to mind. In that light it would show some recognition of "Indian" ownership. However, you are right that ALL the Revolutionary Leaders were British Citizens that were born on what is now US soil. Many of those that fought were probably immigrants but MOST were born here.

However, my family only dates in America until about 1890-1910. With most of my great grandparents and one grandmother bing actual immigrants. I have seen no statistics and it would be interesting t know, but I would guess that most Americans today descend from "immigrants" that came after the Revolution.

However, this speaks highly of American culture, values, freedoms and type of Gov that so many people would risk so much to come here. And we are a great enough country to accept them if they do so legally, adopt our language and assimilate our culture.
When done correctly immigrants add to our nation, when illegals stream across an open border they distract from it.
Tinsldr2@yahoo.com

very well said! I'm impressed. :) You are right , most of us do have ancestry that did immigrate to the US after the Revolutionary War. Yes, that is a great testiment to how wonderful this nation has become. However, illegals don't want to assimilate at all-they just want to take what they can get. They are not immigrants in the pure sense since they have no desire to give up allegiance to their old country and become part of this country unlike our ancestors that worked hard to become American citizens, leaving behind their old allegiances. This is what we real Americans have to fight.

I tell people that in my veins flows the blood of Scottish, English, German, Canadian, possibly an unsubtantiated rumor or two of maybe native American indian and only the Big Guy upstairs knows what else. But it isn't the blood that matters-it's the heart that beats it that does matter. And this heart is PURE red-white-and-blue, stars-and-stripes American. Understanding and appreciating the sacrifices that were (and still are) made just to begin this nation in the first place is too important to ignore. Sadly, too many Americans have forgotten.

The NAU disaster is getting closer. Now, it appears coins with the NAU 'seal' are being produced. Go here and look for yourself:
http://www.amerocurrency.com/support.html

I am a Tom Tancredo fan. His campaign slogan is:
This is our culture; fight for it. This is our flag; pick it up. This is our country; take it back.

Yeah, he's got my vote :D