They had their own laws\rules and borders.
No, of course not. The Amerindians had no laws only had customs and their rules were de facto and not de jure, besides that they were based on the use of coercive force, we can say then that under that concept of government of the strongest the Europeans were duly imposed, and they did not have borders either. They had only some small territories of the whole great continent.
In addition, many American tribes such as the Totonacs or the Tlaxcalans allied with the Europeans to destroy the great American powers such as the Aztecs. In fact, in the conquest of Mexico, more Native Americans fought against the Aztecs than Europeans, so I do not know where the consideration of trespassers would come from.
It does not matter what the land was called, it belonged to them and it was taken from them...
This is also not true, most of the American territory was not inhabited, not even explored, before the arrival of the Europeans. Many Europeans inhabited places before any native tribe did.
We could also blame the slave trade on the Africans themselves, since the white slavers bought their slaves from black Africans who raided the interior and captured their brothers to sell.
No, we could not blame them for that, but we would also give part of the responsibility.
What I was referring to is that they did not consider him trespassers, and they are also part of the Amerindian peoples, or is it that only the Aztecs are Americans and the Totonacs are not?
The white races of the world are famous for this tactic. It wouldn't be hard to find a faction in any country who wouldn't take up arms against the sitting government if they thought they could prevail. The Middle East is a perfect example as is the sort of turmoil you're experiencing in Venezuela under international sanctions for non-compliance to the international financier dictates that destroys your currency and hobbles your economy to condition the people for revolution.
You're right though. The natives of this huge continent did not consider the Europeans trespassers. They often welcomed them. But that was to their peril since the invaders thought the natives were little more than heathen animals who couldn't understand the concept of ownership (which they largely could not since it was inconceivable in their culture).
Just because the invasion of the Americas by the Europeans is an already established fact does not make it legitimate. It was theft and dispossession regardless of whether the natives believed they possessed their land or not.
Rome gave the Iberian peninsula to the Goths to keep them from destroying Rome. The Basques who had lived there for centuries had to flee into the hills. That was an injustice.
If the US decided enough was enough and invaded and occupied Venezuela because thought it needed your oil and you weren't giving it to them, would that be okay with you? Venezuela doesn't need that much oil. I bet there would be plenty of Venezuelans who would rally behind the Americans to help them get established. Would that make it right?
That is the very crux of civilization and why I'm not a fan. All civilizations eventually collapse because they are hierarchical and inherently corrupt, built upon the bent backs of the systematically impoverished.
I do not believe that the "white races" are the guilty of evil in all countries, not even if there are "white races". To say that Venezuela is in crisis due to international sanctions is simply false, because they lasted more than 4 years in crisis before they placed any. Although that is another topic.
Maybe it was an injustice, maybe it was not right, that depends from the point where you see it, but I'm not justifying the colonization, I'm just saying that I think it's wrong to compare the colonizers with the illegal immigrants, they are two very different.
I just do not think the colonizers are trespassers, and they just call them opportunistically, because many Mexicans, not Latinos, only Mexicans, get upset because the people of the United States criticize the illegal immigration of Mexicans, and then they look for an excuse to justify their actions. I do not see Argentines, Chileans, Venezuelans, Brazilians, and other South Americans criticizing the colonizers, I only see Mexicans doing that. Do you know what they say in South America? Ignorantly many say that their countries are poor because they were colonized by the Spaniards and not by the British, a rather stupid thought, but at no time they call the colonizers "trespassers", because they know that everything that exists now in this continent is thanks to they.
It seems to me that many Mexicans are simply annoyed by the disproportionate wealth of the United States on the continent, and they want to put their hands there, but since they emigrate illegally, they justify themselves by saying that the colonizers are just like them.
And I do not think they act with a sense of belonging, have you seen what "Latinos" say in the United States? They criticize their own countries, and the people who live there, Alicia Machado, the Venezuelan who went on a campaign with Hillary Clinton, did not think twice before trampling her own country and waving the flag of the United States. But really many of them do not care about the Americas, they only care about riches, that is why they are not interested in making their own country prosper and only go to the United States.
Ok... that is like saying my laws/rules are better than yours, so your laws/rules don't count.
This is also not true, most of the American territory was not inhabited, not even explored, before the arrival of the Europeans. Many Europeans inhabited places before any native tribe did.Look at the map in the link I shared, Native American Tribes lived all over the entire continent.
You can call them whatever you want, trespassers, conquerors, thieves, pillagers, etc... it does not matter. It is a simple concept, the Native Americans were on the land first and the Europeans came and took it from them. Debating about what laws/rules did or did not exist and which were de facto or de jure is irrelevant. When Europeans were attacking Native Americans and kicking them off their land they were not worried about if they were breaking any of their rules/laws....
The map in the link you placed does not show the territory they occupied, only shows an area where cultures and tribes were similar and were not the same, did not inhabit the entire continent, not even half.
This map is more accurate, although it is in Spanish. It shows how the largest amount of the continental territory was inhabited by nomadic tribes, which means that they had no fixed border or civilization, much less rules.
Why not, the Native Americans were not on the land first, only in some portions. And it is not a valid comparison to make with the current problems of illegal immigration that exists in the current United States.
What you are saying here is that if you don't believe in acquisitive property rights, live directly off the land, wander around following the game and the seasons and live in such a was as to not need a structured, legalist authority structure you aren't actually occupying said land and so it's okay to be removed from that land by an invading people whose culture is fixated on acquisition, economic hierarchy, dominance and self-service. Correct?
I would not say that. I am referring to the fact that in most of the continental territory there were no tribe, civilization or people, who, as nomads, did not have a clearly delimited territory. There were many areas that the Europeans conquered without there being an apex of American civilization, that is, without pushing anyone from that place. And that is the main part of the continental territory.
Nor would I say that European culture is fixated on acquisition, perhaps it would be the same for all human culture, if you see the great American civilizations such as the Incas or the Aztecs you could notice how they were also "fixated" on acquisition.
We can make assumptions all night long about where they lived and what rules/laws they had and if you agree with them or not. It was a simple invasion by foreign invaders as it has occurred millions of times throughout thousands of years of human history on this planet.
I was not making comparison of illegal immigration problems, I was conjecturing that it is hypocritical to complain about trespassers in a country that was created by trespassers. If you believe the Europeans who came to this country were not trespassers that is your opinion as is mine that they were trespassers.
I totally agree with you.
Oh, and yes this would make sense if it were the trespassers complaining. I haven't trespassed anywhere and I am the one complaining.
Apples and Oranges. It does matter. We have the UN and we can travel anywhere on the planet in a day. We can mass communicate instantaneously. The borders are known, and the justice system can travel that fast too.
So yeah is that history? Yes. Is it relevant to today? No. Not at all.