We pay while Indians live in luxury

[AngusThermopyle]

Engineer? That's all you got? Run along now and go play in traffic.

ROTFLMAO

So now you're reduced to the online equivalent of "I know I am but what are you".

As you've just conceded you've got nothing. Run along now.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Setting education aside, there is still a common sense factor to address in this issue. With all due respect folks, in the matter of the issue at hand a political science degree would be the only degree worth mentioning, at that one applies only to the means of negotiations and the process of resulting from it.

This matter has strong connection to the practical application of politics but does not centre on historical realities. Although the basis of claims need historical documentation as well as current relevance, the harsh reality is that only a political solution will serve as an acceptable resolution. In other words the "win/win" scenario needs to be put forward as the benchmark for proposals. That folks is the heart of a political solution, both side need to think that they achieved something in the process.

With that in mind it is my hope that the politicians from both sides rethink their positions. The needs of citizens must take priority over the needs of the state. However, having said that it is not merely the needs of the group in the process of petitioning the government but the citizens that are affected by the process as well. From my viewpoint the only viable solution is one that reduces the cost to citizens levied by the government. In other words, I think that ultimately the government must resolve the issue without further expense to the public. The reason for this is simply that the public is no longer well disposed to government spending on matters that have little benefit to them.

[jbg]

This is just funny. I went to a pow wow a fwew years ago and all I heard was about the "red path" being the "right path" and how the "white Path" was evil and other garbage. Natives are at the very least among the most racist groups in Canada.

This is one of your better posts. At least somewhere you recognize that people who accomplish something have greater value over people who spend their time hating and dividing.

[jbg]

The fatal flaw in that statement is the the Europeans are not asking the other inhabitants to pay them any sort of restitution, the Natives are.

Great point.

The Jews, when they received compensation from West Germany in the early 1950's, were basically the same people who were victimized by the Holocaust. The events were near in time, and the funds that West Germany paid out were far less than the amount plundered from Jewish bank accounts, businesses and other properties.

Here, band leaders some 400 years after the offending events are asking for a blank check to spend their band members' money, and for ancient wrongs.

[gc1765]

The Jews, when they received compensation from West Germany in the early 1950's, were basically the same people who were victimized by the Holocaust. The events were near in time, and the funds that West Germany paid out were far less than the amount plundered from Jewish bank accounts, businesses and other properties.

Here, band leaders some 400 years after the offending events are asking for a blank check to spend their band members' money, and for ancient wrongs.

Don't you think that the Jews deserve to be compensated for at least the money/property that they lost? Or are you satisfied with the compensation, even though it is much less than what was taken?

Also, as for the "offending events", I think you must have accidentally added an extra zero.

[jbg]

Don't you think that the Jews deserve to be compensated for at least the money/property that they lost? Or are you satisfied with the compensation, even though it is much less than what was taken?

Also, as for the "offending events", I think you must have accidentally added an extra zero.

The compensation wasn't satisfactory. Yet Jews aren't rioting in Caledonia.

[DangerMouse]

The compensation wasn't satisfactory. Yet Jews aren't rioting in Caledonia.

The only satisfactory compensation would be to ship the whole works of you back to Europe. And take your cranky, bald-headed arses with you and your right wing retarded mentality. And don't take a shower on the boat and when you get back to Europe you'll be replicating history when you walk off the boats smelling like pee and poop. The when you get there start writing laws on how the people there should live and watch the reaction

[gc1765]

The compensation wasn't satisfactory. Yet Jews aren't rioting in Caledonia.

You didn't answer the question.

[JCAN]

The only satisfactory compensation would be to ship the whole works of you back to Europe. And take your cranky, bald-headed arses with you and your right wing retarded mentality. And don't take a shower on the boat and when you get back to Europe you'll be replicating history when you walk off the boats smelling like pee and poop. The when you get there start writing laws on how the people there should live and watch the reaction

[/quo

If we all go back to where we came from I will meet you in Africa if your canoe will make it that is. the fact is you have no claim on this land and never did you were not here first and the natives are a product of migrations from Asia and Europe meeting in the middle, you are only bastard children of a chance meeting get used to it and I would stay off the hygiene issue because I was at portage and main and the natives walking around there are in no better shape and they have not traveled months on a boat. and quite simply if idiots like you do not learn to shut your mouths you will find them shut for you. because if we all wanted to hear an asshole we could just fart and it would still sound more intelligent then you. If it was not for us today your race would probably be extinct survival of the fittest is the law of nature and you fall short of that goal these days if we were to cut your funding of right now there is nothing that you could do, barricades would come down very quickly if the gloves came off and without the funding you would have no means to support yourselves. I have been to Europe, Have you? I am sure you have not so I will tell you this they would not put up with your shit you would have to learn to support your self, and integrate into a society without someone holding your hand the whole way and if you could not then you would perish at the benefit to the rest of society.

I would personally not give you the choice you would be treated the same as the rest of the Canadians and if you did not like it tough cookies there is nothing you could do about it and if you wanted a fight we would eradicate you the way that it should have been done in the first place our complacency is destroying the country we are a joke to the rest of the world because we have allowed a conquered nation dictate the way we do things and the subsequent years have proven the natives will do nothing with all the benefits and advantages given to them

[charter.rights]

If we all go back to where we came from I will meet you in Africa if your canoe will make it that is. the fact is you have no claim on this land and never did you were not here first and the natives are a product of migrations from Asia and Europe meeting in the middle, you are only bastard children of a chance meeting get used to it and I would stay off the hygiene issue because I was at portage and main and the natives walking around there are in no better shape and they have not traveled months on a boat. and quite simply if idiots like you do not learn to shut your mouths you will find them shut for you. because if we all wanted to hear an asshole we could just fart and it would still sound more intelligent then you. If it was not for us today your race would probably be extinct survival of the fittest is the law of nature and you fall short of that goal these days if we were to cut your funding of right now there is nothing that you could do, barricades would come down very quickly if the gloves came off and without the funding you would have no means to support yourselves. I have been to Europe, Have you? I am sure you have not so I will tell you this they would not put up with your shit you would have to learn to support your self, and integrate into a society without someone holding your hand the whole way and if you could not then you would perish at the benefit to the rest of society.

I would personally not give you the choice you would be treated the same as the rest of the Canadians and if you did not like it tough cookies there is nothing you could do about it and if you wanted a fight we would eradicate you the way that it should have been done in the first place our complacency is destroying the country we are a joke to the rest of the world because we have allowed a conquered nation dictate the way we do things and the subsequent years have proven the natives will do nothing with all the benefits and advantages given to them

The Little Racist comes out of you when your back it to the wall, eh? Very interesting....especially for someone who claims they aren't prejudiced.....

BTW. People were in the Americas nearly 10,000 years before the first people walked to Europe and 30,000 years before people were theorized to have crossed from Asia. So in a way Native Americans are more advanced than Europeans and Asians, having found a more direct route out of Africa, perhaps not long after the Aborigines found Australia.

[Kitchener]

quite simply if idiots like you do not learn to shut your mouths you will find them shut for you.

Oh noes!!

It's... INTERNET TUFF GUY!1!!

[jbg]

You didn't answer the question.

Don't you think that the Jews deserve to be compensated for at least the money/property that they lost? Or are you satisfied with the compensation, even though it is much less than what was taken?

Also, as for the "offending events", I think you must have accidentally added an extra zero.

I'll try again.

The amount of the compnesation was woefully insufficient, but given the fact thta the Nazi regime was out of business there was some, but limited responsibility on the part of the remaining actors, i.e. the various banks, insurance companies, cooperating "neutral" countries, etc. While the Holocaust and the German aggression in WW II would have have been possible without some cooperation by German and Swiss banks, the Swiss government, Sweden, and various multinational corporations, they were not the ones shipping people to the gas chambers. So liability was limited. Further, imposition of full liability on any group of actors would have bankrupted all of them, negating the possibility of receiving any compensation. So taking about 1/10 of what was due looks awfully good, though obviously I am not satisfied.

As far as the "offending events" I mean the taking of native lands by the whites. Thus, 400 and not 40 is the right figure.

[jbg]

The only satisfactory compensation would be to ship the whole works of you back to Europe. And take your cranky, bald-headed arses with you and your right wing retarded mentality. And don't take a shower on the boat and when you get back to Europe you'll be replicating history when you walk off the boats smelling like pee and poop. The when you get there start writing laws on how the people there should live and watch the reaction

If we all go back to where we came from I will meet you in Africa if your canoe will make it that is. the fact is you have no claim on this land and never did you were not here first and the natives are a product of migrations from Asia and Europe meeting in the middle, you are only bastard children of a chance meeting get used to it and I would stay off the hygiene issue because I was at portage and main and the natives walking around there are in no better shape and they have not traveled months on a boat. and quite simply if idiots like you do not learn to shut your mouths you will find them shut for you....

I agree with you.

Frankly, the concept of "'indiginous people" could use some work. How are people who came over the land bridge (really quite wide and not obviously distinct from the rest of Siberia and/or Alaska) and got stranded by rising waters on our side any different from European colonizers? People move.

Mankind originiated in the Great Rift Valley eons ago. We multiplied, and spread out, initially, through the joined continents of Africa, Europe and Asia. Eventually, mankind spread to many islands, to Australia and to the New World. Within each of these areas, there have been mass movements of peoples, often with deadly consequences for those in the "receiving" areas. The movement overseas of Europeans needing a safety valve from the restrictions and idiocy of feudal life was one example of this. The movement of FN's from northeast Asia to the America is yet another. Rolling back the results of these population shifts is wildly impractical (for more on this go here).

I would personally not give you the choice you would be treated the same as the rest of the Canadians and if you did not like it tough cookies there is nothing you could do about it and if you wanted a fight we would eradicate you the way that it should have been done in the first place our complacency is destroying the country we are a joke to the rest of the world because we have allowed a conquered nation dictate the way we do things and the subsequent years have proven the natives will do nothing with all the benefits and advantages given to them

Again, mostly agreed. But what about treaty obligations? Edited June 1, 2008 by jbg

[DangerMouse]

"Most people " would interpret my comments about going back over to Europe as a teasing comment. I mean think of it? DO you honestly thing all 35 million of you "so-called Canadians" along with 350 million yanks would go back to Europe? You fell for my little joke lightbulb rightwinger? Secondly, you can try to prove otherwise with Bering Strait etc but it still does not change the fact that the aboriginal people were the "first ones here." SO once again we have lightbulb scientists trying to prove otherwise. If is not such a big deal then why did Columbus, and the history books that have shaped your brainwashed brain keep saying that Columbus discovered the America's when the natives were already here? Yet another lightbulb moment...one day you and countless others will graduate from flickering candle in the wind to 20 watt lightbulb, Then maybe the so-called grown, men of the rightwing element will start looking more mature...and Canada and the dumb-asses further south will grow up

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The only dumb ass people posting here are the ones that are not in favour of equality. All citizens must have the same rights, that is the long and the short of it. Government needs to understand that anything less is racist and counter productive. Citizens need to understand that we are all equal, with no more right or entitlement than any other citizen. That is the problem, some people are taking a very childish approach to the current issues.

The entire issue of land claims is another matter, but rights are simply rights.

[charter.rights]

If we all go back to where we came from I will meet you in Africa if your canoe will make it that is. the fact is you have no claim on this land and never did you were not here first and the natives are a product of migrations from Asia and Europe meeting in the middle, you are only bastard children of a chance meeting get used to it and I would stay off the hygiene issue because I was at portage and main and the natives walking around there are in no better shape and they have not traveled months on a boat. and quite simply if idiots like you do not learn to shut your mouths you will find them shut for you....I agree with you.

Frankly, the concept of "'indiginous people" could use some work. How are people who came over the land bridge (really quite wide and not obviously distinct from the rest of Siberia and/or Alaska) and got stranded by rising waters on our side any different from European colonizers? People move.

Mankind originiated in the Great Rift Valley eons ago. We multiplied, and spread out, initially, through the joined continents of Africa, Europe and Asia. Eventually, mankind spread to many islands, to Australia and to the New World. Within each of these areas, there have been mass movements of peoples, often with deadly consequences for those in the "receiving" areas. The movement overseas of Europeans needing a safety valve from the restrictions and idiocy of feudal life was one example of this. The movement of FN's from northeast Asia to the America is yet another. Rolling back the results of these population shifts is wildly impractical (for more on this go here).

Again, mostly agreed. But what about treaty obligations?

"Frankly, the concept of "'indiginous people" could use some work."

I'll remember this the next time we get into the Israel - Palestine discussion, since you obviously must believe by the same way of thinking that the Jews have no claim to the area they stole from the Palestines.

"We multiplied, and spread out, initially, through the joined continents of Africa, Europe and Asia."

Just for clarification purposes let's put this in its proper order.

"We multiplied, and spread out, initially, through the joined continents of......" Africa, South Asia, Australia, South America, North America and Europe. Certainly this might appear to be just semantics but at the end of the day it is important to be reminded that the Europeans are archaeologically the late comers to the world organizations. If we are to get into the discussion about what constitutes "indigenous" then it is important to clarify that pretty much all peoples are indigenous EXCEPT the Europeans - especially where in history they attempted to invade and then colonize other indigenous lands. Therefore we only need to point to the colonization of a place by Europeans (since they are the most prevalent disease) to separate what could be considered "indigenous" and what is "foreign". In this context and the legal one, it isn't necessary to get into the details of how long a people were indigenous to the area, only that they were there first before the Europeans arrived and therefore hold all legal and moral ownership of lands (unless they have dispossessed the inhabitants by force, or treaty). In Canada there has never been a dispossession occur since the British colonists decided that "sharing" the land was more profitable. Later, treaties were used to solidify the oral agreements to share the land since the King forbade anyone from directly occupying lands that were declared in 1763 to be exclusively "Indian Lands". Moving forward little has changed in the legal aspect of the Royal Proclamation since the people occupied land illegally to the objection to native peoples.

[DangerMouse]

The only dumb ass people posting here are the ones that are not in favour of equality. All citizens must have the same rights, that is the long and the short of it. Government needs to understand that anything less is racist and counter productive. Citizens need to understand that we are all equal, with no more right or entitlement than any other citizen. That is the problem, some people are taking a very childish approach to the current issues.

The entire issue of land claims is another matter, but rights are simply rights.

Obviously you don't understand that laws contradict values...and this certain thing called precedence....who wrote those laws Mr Brainwave Lightbulb? The Indians sure didnt and to give them crap over that is childish! Racist? The Indian Act is the most racist piece of legislation that was written by whites you bozo brain

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The Indian act is indeed garbage, and so is the Royal Proclamation. Consider the stupidity of giving back what was taken by force, at the cost of lives.

With all due respect DM the thing to do is think the entire situation through. Keep in mind that laws change at the whim of the governments. Governments change at the whim of the people. Countries are created and destroyed at the whims of the powerful. The real issue here goes far deeper than land claims and treaty rights. What people should consider is the rights and wrongs of the current society, not the past. Does it make sense to second guess every decision ever made by a government?

Native land claims need to be resolved, that is true enough. However consider the consequences of the efforts. As it currently stands there are many very upset people on both sides of the street. Would it not make sense to find common ground?

Let me say this; if neither side gives an inch in negotiations then what could be gained? Why should one side give in if the other does not? What is the purpose of the effort if not to achieve some beneficial result? Now consider how to achieve the result desired.

If the desired outcome is to simply get all the non-natives off land that natives claim to have some hold on, then I would think you will be very disappointed. If the outcome is something else, that needs to be identified and related to the public. The public is the ultimate decision maker in this regard because it can and will remove from governments and positions of power and authority those who threaten the well being of citizens.

I am a western independence proponent, specifically Alberta independence. As such I recognize your frustrations with the federal government. I also admire the native tenacity with respect to their own rights. Remember that taking something held for generations is a sour point. What natives are currently asking is for the government to do to itself what was done to natives. That is an act of vendetta and one not likely of success. I would suggest that you folks regroup and consider alternative methods. Given that the current situation is the result of a struggle that is decades long, and the outcome is still far from certain it may be prudent to do something else.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

"Frankly, the concept of "'indiginous people" could use some work."

I'll remember this the next time we get into the Israel - Palestine discussion, since you obviously must believe by the same way of thinking that the Jews have no claim to the area they stole from the Palestines.

"We multiplied, and spread out, initially, through the joined continents of Africa, Europe and Asia."

Just for clarification purposes let's put this in its proper order.

"We multiplied, and spread out, initially, through the joined continents of......" Africa, South Asia, Australia, South America, North America and Europe. Certainly this might appear to be just semantics but at the end of the day it is important to be reminded that the Europeans are archaeologically the late comers to the world organizations. If we are to get into the discussion about what constitutes "indigenous" then it is important to clarify that pretty much all peoples are indigenous EXCEPT the Europeans - especially where in history they attempted to invade and then colonize other indigenous lands. Therefore we only need to point to the colonization of a place by Europeans (since they are the most prevalent disease) to separate what could be considered "indigenous" and what is "foreign". In this context and the legal one, it isn't necessary to get into the details of how long a people were indigenous to the area, only that they were there first before the Europeans arrived and therefore hold all legal and moral ownership of lands (unless they have dispossessed the inhabitants by force, or treaty). In Canada there has never been a dispossession occur since the British colonists decided that "sharing" the land was more profitable. Later, treaties were used to solidify the oral agreements to share the land since the King forbade anyone from directly occupying lands that were declared in 1763 to be exclusively "Indian Lands". Moving forward little has changed in the legal aspect of the Royal Proclamation since the people occupied land illegally to the objection to native peoples.

So in Canada the natives are not dispossessed, that is indeed good news. So what is it you are going on about then CR?

Your entire argument then is that you own the entire nation because you got here first. Bad argument. That concept doesn't hold water my friend. You have to be able to hold onto land in order to lay claim to it. For whatever reason, native Canadians have FAILED to do so. Try reading a history book or something, the entire planet has been overrun at one time or another. To use your logic you should just sign over title to the Africans because they are the genetic forefathers of all of us.

Your argument is like that of the Six Nations who came to Canada after the US war of independence, the entire Caledonia issue is a joke. A nomadic people, such as many of the North American natives, never had any real claim to lands other than the we are here so its ours attitude. Borders were never formalized and infighting amongst tribes adjusted limits of territory all of the time. To continue along those lines makes no sense at all. You are far better off now than what you were before the arrival of the Europeans, even if you lost your lands. Besides, isn't it true that individual natives can hold no land? Only the tribes or bands can have claim to the land. Native society is communistic by nature, and we all know the success rate of communism. Grow up for God's sake and recognize the reality of the situation!

Natives could achieve a great deal with the right mindset and the right leadership. However the guys snorting pam and gasoline seem to have the market cornered on native logic. You folks should get together with the crack heads from our culture, since there is so much in common there.

[DangerMouse]

So in Canada the natives are not dispossessed, that is indeed good news. So what is it you are going on about then CR?

Your entire argument then is that you own the entire nation because you got here first. Bad argument. That concept doesn't hold water my friend. You have to be able to hold onto land in order to lay claim to it. For whatever reason, native Canadians have FAILED to do so. Try reading a history book or something, the entire planet has been overrun at one time or another. To use your logic you should just sign over title to the Africans because they are the genetic forefathers of all of us.

Your argument is like that of the Six Nations who came to Canada after the US war of independence, the entire Caledonia issue is a joke. A nomadic people, such as many of the North American natives, never had any real claim to lands other than the we are here so its ours attitude. Borders were never formalized and infighting amongst tribes adjusted limits of territory all of the time. To continue along those lines makes no sense at all. You are far better off now than what you were before the arrival of the Europeans, even if you lost your lands. Besides, isn't it true that individual natives can hold no land? Only the tribes or bands can have claim to the land. Native society is communistic by nature, and we all know the success rate of communism. Grow up for God's sake and recognize the reality of the situation!

Natives could achieve a great deal with the right mindset and the right leadership. However the guys snorting pam and gasoline seem to have the market cornered on native logic. You folks should get together with the crack heads from our culture, since there is so much in common there.

You're funny jerry fartin jibberish

[jbg]

"Frankly, the concept of "'indiginous people" could use some work."

I'll remember this the next time we get into the Israel - Palestine discussion, since you obviously must believe by the same way of thinking that the Jews have no claim to the area they stole from the Palestines.

Frankly, the Jewish issue claims are strong either with regard to "who was there first" or with regard to the argument I made, which are that population shifts occur for political, economical, religious and military reasons. An obvious example would have been the Ice Ages; as the glaciers waxed and waned, no UN was there to ensure that people who settled in areas that rapidly, over a period of centuries if not decades became uninhabitable, were penned in their "native" lands. Similarly, the Jews needed to get away for most of Europe as post-Holocaust, there was no returning "home".

Did the various FN tribes ever fight among themselves and take/conquer land in North or South America, pre-1491?

[charter.rights]

So in Canada the natives are not dispossessed, that is indeed good news. So what is it you are going on about then CR?

Your entire argument then is that you own the entire nation because you got here first. Bad argument. That concept doesn't hold water my friend. You have to be able to hold onto land in order to lay claim to it. For whatever reason, native Canadians have FAILED to do so. Try reading a history book or something, the entire planet has been overrun at one time or another. To use your logic you should just sign over title to the Africans because they are the genetic forefathers of all of us.

Your argument is like that of the Six Nations who came to Canada after the US war of independence, the entire Caledonia issue is a joke. A nomadic people, such as many of the North American natives, never had any real claim to lands other than the we are here so its ours attitude. Borders were never formalized and infighting amongst tribes adjusted limits of territory all of the time. To continue along those lines makes no sense at all. You are far better off now than what you were before the arrival of the Europeans, even if you lost your lands. Besides, isn't it true that individual natives can hold no land? Only the tribes or bands can have claim to the land. Native society is communistic by nature, and we all know the success rate of communism. Grow up for God's sake and recognize the reality of the situation!

Natives could achieve a great deal with the right mindset and the right leadership. However the guys snorting pam and gasoline seem to have the market cornered on native logic. You folks should get together with the crack heads from our culture, since there is so much in common there.

Six Nations have been here in Canada / Ontario for more than 1000 years. They were known as the Northern Iroquois and were Confederacy Nations of Mohawk, Seneca and Cayuga. They expanded their territory in the early 1600's (over 100 years before the British arrived) to include areas as far north as the Ottawa River, Lake Nippissing, Lake Huron and all points south.

No lands in Canada were won by the British or any other colonizer. You'll find that the legal possession of land is underwritten by the very treaties and agreements protected under the Royal Proclamation 1763. In doing so the Natives exercised their right to continuous possession even after the settlement began.

Native society is communistic by nature..... Another incredible ignorant opinion devoid of the facts. Six Nations holds the longest running democracy on earth. Even today as liberal a society we believe we live in, we still haven't achieved the kind of participatory democracy that the Confederacy guarded when our forefathers first stepped off their boats. And just to make the fact complete, the British peasants who arrived here came from oppressive monarchies full of poor hygiene related diseases and poor hygiene habits that saw them bath but once a year and drink beer and wine because they had pissed and crapped in their drinking water so much it was polluted beyond recovery. Even a simple illness like scurvy might have killed them if not for the medicinal knowledge of First Nations.

I would suggest that you read a book. Your thinking about this kind of stuff and forming ignorant opinions really doesn't make good discussion...even though it gives us tremendous entertainment value, laughing our asses off at you.

Edited June 2, 2008 by charter.rights

[charter.rights]

Frankly, the Jewish issue claims are strong either with regard to "who was there first" or with regard to the argument I made, which are that population shifts occur for political, economical, religious and military reasons. An obvious example would have been the Ice Ages; as the glaciers waxed and waned, no UN was there to ensure that people who settled in areas that rapidly, over a period of centuries if not decades became uninhabitable, were penned in their "native" lands. Similarly, the Jews needed to get away for most of Europe as post-Holocaust, there was no returning "home".

Did the various FN tribes ever fight among themselves and take/conquer land in North or South America, pre-1491?

Frankly, the Jewish issue claims are strong either with regard to "who was there first".... Moses colonized the lands and brought in massive changes. That gives Jews no more right to the area but favours the Palestines or the Egyptians who occupied the lands continuously while sharing it with the refugees.

No doubt there were some disagreements over land in the Americas. However, there was little in the way of out and out warfare over land given that the kind of energy needed to sustain war over real estate devastated populations and imposed on scarce food caches. As well the land masses were so large it would be hard to control land through the use of armed occupation.

Instead for the most part, nations came to agreements to either share the lands under dispute, or to mark the edge of territories and stay away. There are a number of treaties that go back 1000 years that hold these agreements to this day.

[jbg]

Frankly, the Jewish issue claims are strong either with regard to "who was there first".... Moses colonized the lands and brought in massive changes. That gives Jews no more right to the area but favours the Palestines or the Egyptians who occupied the lands continuously while sharing it with the refugees.

If you want to play that card the Jews moved down to Egypt temporarily, where one of their own was PM, spurred by a drought. They moved back after being enslaved. And the inhabitants were not "Palestinians". There never has been such a group.

No doubt there were some disagreements over land in the Americas. However, there was little in the way of out and out warfare over land given that the kind of energy needed to sustain war over real estate devastated populations and imposed on scarce food caches. As well the land masses were so large it would be hard to control land through the use of armed occupation.

Instead for the most part, nations came to agreements to either share the lands under dispute, or to mark the edge of territories and stay away. There are a number of treaties that go back 1000 years that hold these agreements to this day.

Among FN's you mean? You're remarkably unclear as to who the parties to these "agreements" were.

[charter.rights]

If you want to play that card the Jews moved down to Egypt temporarily, where one of their own was PM, spurred by a drought. They moved back after being enslaved. And the inhabitants were not "Palestinians". There never has been such a group.

Among FN's you mean? You're remarkably unclear as to who the parties to these "agreements" were.

I'm not unclear at all. The concept of treaties were in existence long before contact with the first Dutch and British arrived in New England. In fact the Two Row treaty was made with the Dutch less than 60 years after they arrived because the Six Nations Confederacy, couldn't stand the newcomers and so made a deal with the Dutch to have them stay away.

However, one of the treaties on record is the creation of the Confederacy Council. Neighbouring nations who were in conflict over territory decided to come together to agree to their territorial limits and put specially selected people in a Council to discuss all of the things that might have concern for them all. That agreement has been dated to be over 1000 years old. Thus the Confederacy is the oldest democracy on earth.