美国是否偷窃了印第安人的土地？《二》 [美国媒体]

Did America steal its land from the Native Americans?

美国是否偷窃了印第安人的土地？《二》

Clay Reynolds,（Professor at University of Texas at Dallas1998-present PhD Modern Letters, The University of TulsaGraduated 1979 Lives in Lowry Crossing, Texas）
Not in the strict sense of theft, if that’s what you’re asking. The tribes of Native Americans discovered by the Anglo Europeans when they arrived in North America did not represent a unified group of people, and to be honest, they still don’t. Different people had developed different levels of civilization depending on where they lived and how their societies had evolved. There were planters and agriculturally dependent people as well as hunter-gatherers, people with established communities, often actual cities, that were centralized and there were nomadic tribes that moved with the seasons. Many of these were warlike people who defended the regions of their control in order to ensure hunting viability as well as security, but some, if not most, had no sense of “ownership” of the land they occupied. It was more a matter of supremacy and dominance than of possession.

克雷·雷诺兹（1998年——至今，达拉斯德克萨斯大学教授，1979年图尔萨加杜大学现代文学博士毕业，住在德克萨斯州的劳里十字路口）
回答六：
如果你这么问，只能说是：（白人占领美洲）并不是严格意义上的“盗窃”.
当盎格鲁欧洲人到达北美时发现美洲原住民部落并不是一个统一的群体，
老实说，他们（现在）也不是个统一的群体.

（当时）不同的（部落）人发展了出不同的文明水平，其文明水平取决于他们生活的地区和他们的社会是如何进化的.
（当时美洲的土着）有依赖农业的种植部落，也有采集狩猎部落，有已经建立了的社区、通常是真正的城市的集中的部落， 也有随季节变化而流动的游牧部落.其中许多部落很好战，他们（非常注重）保卫自己控制的地区，以确保能打猎，安全地狩猎.

但是，如果不是大多数人的话，也有一部分人对他们所占领的土地没有“所有权”的意识的. （当时他们对领土的意识）其说是一种“拥有权”不如说是一种“霸权”和“支配权”.



Treaties were offered, signed, and made, but the European sense of law and contracts was complex and fraught with corruption and chicanery, often, something that confused and bewildered many tribal leaders, some of whom had no real right to deal the lands they bargained away for various exchanges of goods or merely for assurances of peace. The land, as such, to them was available, and if the Europeans wanted to claim it, it was no matter to them; but when the Europeans attempted to settle it and “own” it and even defend it, conflicts arose. Europeans also did not have a sympathetic attitude toward warfare and raiding for both glory and plunder, or just as a rite of passage, or to carry on generational tribal feuding that had been going on for decades or longer.

（白人和印第安土着）制定、签署了（关于土地）的各种条约，
但欧洲的法律、合同通常都是极其复杂、充满了陷阱、腐败.
那些印第安的酋长就这样被（白人的）各种条约绕晕了.

他们中的一些人也没有处理土地所有权的真正权利（注：意思是白人强大，土地归谁已经由白人说了算），
他们（跟白人）讨价还价，交易各种物资，或者仅仅是为了获得（跟白人）和平相处.

这片美洲大陆的土地，就其本身而言，对印第安人来说是故土.
欧洲人想要占有它，当然是毫不费力.

但是，如果欧洲人想要（从法理上）“拥有”它，那么，这里面就有名不顺的问题了.
欧洲人对那种发动战争，发起袭击是为了荣耀、掠夺的行为不感兴趣.
对于印第安部落把战争和掠夺看作是一种成年仪式，一直进行战争几十年甚至更久，对于这种延续几代人的部落战争，欧洲人并不感兴趣.

As the Anglo-Europeans pushed westward they encountered more and more people who were, to them, less sophisticated, more primitive, and, to them, more savage than some of those more advanced and developed civilizations of the eastern part of the Americas. Tribes of the upper Midwest, the Great Plains, and the mountains were more warlike, viciously defensive, and less well organized than those of the East, but to the Europeans, they were pagan savages of an inferior race that had, ultimately, to be removed or, finally, extirpated entirely to make way for the Christian-dominated European civilization. They saw them as being subhuman, unable to assimilate or be absorbed into the Ango-European mold.

随着盎格鲁-欧洲人在美洲大陆向西推进，他们遇到了越来越多的土着人.
在欧洲人看来，越向西部推进，碰到的土着人越野蛮、原始. 这些西部的部落比不上东部部落先进、发达、文明、复杂. 中西部、北部的大平原、山区的部落更好战，防范心更重. 他们的社会组织不如东部部落，

但是，所有的美洲大陆土着对欧洲人来说，都是异教，都是野蛮人，属于劣等种族，最终都要杀掉，或者彻底铲除掉，都必须为基督教主导的欧洲文明让路.
欧洲人认为那些土着都是次等人类，无法被欧洲文明同化或吸收的（次等人）

They deplored the common practices of Native American society, particularly as regards marriage and loyalty, sacrifice and other traditional or religious practices they found disgusting or dangerous. (A wonderful irony is that when Cortes witnessed human sacrifice as practiced by the Aztecs, he was outraged by the savagery of it; but on the same day he witnessed it, more than a dozen people were burned at the stake as “heretics” in Spain as part of an “auto de fe,” to the glory of God, something that Cortes would likely have approved of entirely.) They also found Native Americans to be easily duped, bought off, or, ultimately, defeated in armed conflict so that the land they dominated would become more available and safe to settle and occupy and, of course, possess.

欧洲人看不惯美州土着社会的普遍习俗，特别是婚姻、忠诚、牺牲和其他他们认为令人厌恶或危险的传统或宗教习俗方面.
(极具讽刺意味的是，当科尔特斯目睹阿兹特克人进行活人祭祀时，他被这种野蛮行径激怒了; 但就在他目睹这一切的同一天，在西班牙，为了祭祀上帝，有十多人作为“异教徒”被烧死在火刑柱上. 这时候科尔特斯就不觉得那是什么野蛮行径了）

欧洲人还发现，印第安人很容易上当受骗，容易被收买，从而最终在武装冲突中被击败.
如此一来，白人就很容易地获得印第安人所统治的土地，可以更安全地定居、占领，当然，还可以“拥有”.



It’s an easy matter to judge the Anglo-Europeans, now Americans, now as ignorant, bigoted, racists, and greedy land-grabbing thieves. To their minds, though, and to their attitudes, what they were doing was justified entirely by their faith and their commitment to the growth and advancement of their culture. To many if not most people of the nineteenth century, the white, Eurocentric civilization was superior in every way to any other civilization they might encounter, including the ancient and venerated civilizations of China or Japan or India or certainly of Arabia. The unstated creed of their movement West was “convert or die,” not only in a religious sense but in a social and cultural sense as well. But even a conversion was not sufficient to elevate the tribal individuals they met to a level of racial equality or deference. The prevailing attitude of Americans from the seventeenth century forward was that the world was better off without these primitive, savage people, something that was articulated in Phil Sheridan’s famous quote (attributed), “The only good Indian I ever saw was dead.”

现在的英美人，现在的美国人，是无知的、顽固的、种族主义者和贪婪的掠夺土地的小偷，这是很容易判断出来的.
然而，在他们自己的认知意识里，他们所做的一切完全正义，完全符合他们的信仰，完全符合他们传播文化和进步文明的使命.
在19世纪，以欧洲为中心的白人文明在各个方面都优于他们可能遇到的任何其他文明，包括中国、日本、印度或阿拉伯等古老而受人尊敬的文明.

欧洲人在西进运动中未阐明的潜在教义是：“不信教则处死”，这个潜在教义不仅体现在宗教意义上，在社会和文化意义上也是体现（得淋漓尽致）.
但是，即使你皈依于他们的上帝，一次皈依也不足以将他们遇到的部落个体提升到种族平等或尊重的程度.
从十七世纪开始，美国人普遍的态度是，如果没有这些原始的土着野蛮人，世界会更好，菲尔·谢里登的名言是“只有死的印第安人是我见过的好印第安人”

Finally, after the Battle of the Little Bighorn, which took place in 1876 and was one of the most shocking events to the American public that ever took place (It was tantamount to 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, in terms of its impact and lasting effect on US governmental policy.) American attitudes hardened, leading to a program of extirpation through starvation and deprivation and racial isolation and discrimination against Native Americans, policies that have lasted to this day. Legal battles rage as I write this between now well-organized and legally astute tribes and the US or some state governments over treaties that were sometimes signed two centuries ago. Court cases involving tribal boundaries and disputed ownership of land are presently being decided. The difference is that the Native Americans, today, have finally “converted,” if not religiously then at least culturally and educationally, and are fighting back with well-organized and concerted efforts to reclaim if not sustain their lands and their cultural and social historical identities.

最后，在1876年发生的“小巨角”战役之后，这是美国公众有史以来最震惊的事件之一(就其对美国政府政策的持久度影响而言，这相当于9/11或珍珠港事件). 美国人的态度变得强硬起来，导致了一项通过饥饿、贫困、种族隔离、歧视的方式来灭绝印第安人的种族主义计划，这种政策一直持续到今天.

在我写这篇文章的时候，一些组织良好、精通法律的土着部落正与美国或州政府爆发了激烈的法律战. 目前美国法庭正在审理涉及部落边界和有争议的土地所有权的案件.

现在跟以前的不同之处在于，今天的美洲原住民最终“皈依”了，就算没有“皈依”于宗教，也至少是“皈依”美国的文化和教育了.
他们（土着美国人）正在通过组织良好、协调一致的努力进行反击，以收回他们的土地，以及他们的文化和社会历史身份.



Tom Curran
1. At what point did history becoming immutable?2. How many people does it take to "own" land? Can 500,000 people "own" the entirety of Canada to the permanent exclusion of all other people in the world?3. The first American settlers were slaughtered regularly by the Native Americans. Is there a legitimate response or should they have returned to Europe?4. Does "hunting on" constitute ownership?I am not writing this to denigrate Native Americans. But is there another example in the history of the world where one relatively small group of people have been allowed to claim permanent and unchallengeable ownership of land they barely touched, much less actually occupied?

回答七：
1. 历史什么时候已经变得不可改变了？
2. “拥有”（大片）土地需要多少人? 50万人能“拥有”整个加拿大而永远排斥世界上所有其他人，不准别人再进来吗?
3. 第一批美国移民经常被美洲原住民屠杀，（原住民对此）是否应有合理的回应？ 还是他们应该返回欧洲?
4. “狩猎”是否（对土地）构成所有权 ?

我写这个评论不是为了诋毁美州原住民.
但是，在世界历史上是否有例外的例子：允许一个相对较小的群体对他们几乎没有触及的、更不用说实际占有的土地拥有永久的、不可挑战的所有权？

I have been interested in this question in light of the Syrian (Iraqi / Pakistani / Iranian / etc.) migrant flood into Europe. I am wondering whether I can pose the same question: Are these immigrants stealing land from the Europeans? Think about it: in both cases, you have uninvited hordes streaming into fully occupied territory, using violence and ignoring any native laws, and demanding (and taking) the right to pass through and settle in the lands. The international community accepts that the Europeans and others have a moral duty to allow these settlers. Indeed, western thought generally holds that immigration, while it is clearly subject to some restrictions, is nonetheless an inherent right of non-nationals. In Canada, our constitutional documents allow even illegal immigrants full legal rights so long as they can get a toe inside the 200-mile offshore limit.

鉴于叙利亚(伊拉克/巴基斯坦/伊朗/等等)移民涌入欧洲，我一直对这个问题感兴趣.
我想知道我是否可以提出同样的问题: 这些移民是否从欧洲人手中“偷窃”土地?
想想看: 这两种情况，你都有不请自来的游牧部落涌入完全被占领的领土，使用暴力、无视任何本土法律，并要求(并夺取)通行和定居的权利.

国际社会认为，欧洲和其他国家有义务允许这些移民进来定居.
西方思想潮流确实是：虽然移民受到一些明显的限制，但是“移民”是外来者固有的权利.
在加拿大，我们的宪法文件允许即使是非法移民，只要他们能在200海里的离岸范围内活动，也享有完全的合法权利.



EDIT: Boundaries are imaginary lines. The occupants can claim ownership of all that is contained within only if they can hold it and defend it. If they are unable to do so, they will be supplanted by a superior force who, by reason of their might, will take it from them.

边界是假想的线。只有当居住者能够持有并捍卫它的时候，他们才可以要求所有包含在界线里面的东西的所有权.
如果他们做不到这一点，他们就会被其他强大的势力所取代.

Laurie Pettitt
Rhode Island was paid for in beads. Roger Williams did the deal. Which makes your argument fallacious. The land did belong to the Indians and no amount of sophistry will change that.To walk in and take land from the people who have lived on it, without bits of paper to show ownership, was theft.Force of arms is no way of legitimising theft.The native Americans did not need paper to tell them where they could or could not be, they had tribal lands and boundaries.

评论1：
罗德岛州是罗杰·威廉姆斯用珠子（从印第安人手里）买来的. 这个事实证明了你上面说话是不正确的. 这块土地确实属于印第安人，再多的诡辩也改变不了这一点.

走进（美州）去，从住在上面的人手里夺取土地，却没有条文来表明所有权，这是偷窃.
偷窃就是偷窃，武力再强也美化不了“偷窃”.
印第安人不需要什么条文来告诉他们可以或不可以住哪里，他们有部落领土及其边界.

Alex Weaver
The Native Americans actually disagreed. They had no concept of private land, and believed that land belongs to everyone equally. The reason they sold the land was because they didn’t believe it would actually make a difference; it was not “their” land and they were essentially getting free beads.

评论2：
实际上，印第安人不同意楼上的说法.
印第安人没有私有土地的概念，他们认为土地平等地属于每个人.
他们出售土地的原因是他们觉得这没什么大不了的事，因为他们觉得这块地都不属于“他们的”土地. 卖了也算白卖，基本上他们算是免费获得了的珠子（钱）.

Tristan Marajh
Calling the Native Americans squatters is inaccurate and demeaning.

评论3：
把美洲原住民称为“霸占者”是不准确的，也是有失身份的.

Tom Nunamaker（Former AccountantB.A. from University ofHoustonGraduated 1993Lives in Houston, TX）
Actual white man here. Actual Native Americans have told me that the idea of owning the land was not had among their ancestors.Stronger tribes would control areas, but they never thought of that control as owning.So, imho, you can't steal something from someone who doesn't own it. The Europeans were a stronger tribe and took over the land just like the natives had been doing to each other for centuries before.

汤姆（前会计，休斯顿大学文学士，1993年毕业。现居住于TX休斯顿）
回答九：
我是真正的白人.

真正的美国土着人告诉过我，他们的祖先没有拥有这片土地的想法.
更强大的部落会控制土地，但他们从来没有想过这种控制就是“拥有”.

所以，我的意思是，你不能从一个不拥有它的人那里偷东西.
欧洲人是一个更强大的部落，他们接管了这片美州大地，这跟之前数个世纪以来各个部落互相夺取领土没什么区别.

Someday, a still stronger tribe will come along and take the land in spite of the fact that many people “own" bits and pieces of it.. That ownership is established by the laws of the tribe, which will mean nothing to the stronger tribe that will come along and take our land from us.As to the broken treaties, definitely a black eye on the US government, maybe Canada too. I suspect, though I haven't researched it, that some clever lawyer found a legal maneuver to justify the government's actions. Clever lawyers have a way of making what's right look wrong, good look evil, and the guilty look innocent and vice versa.

有一天，一个更强大的部落将会出现并占领这片土地，尽管许多人“拥有”这片土地的一部分. 这种所有权是由部落的法律确定的， 这种部落之间确定的土地“所有权”对强大的部落来说毫无意义，因为他们会从我们这里夺取我们的土地.

至于那些违反条约的国家，美国政府肯定会把他们打得鼻青脸肿，或许加拿大也去打.
我怀疑，尽管我没有研究过，一些聪明的律师会用法律手段来为政府的行为辩护.
聪明的律师总有办法让对的看起来是错的，好的看起来是恶的，有罪的看起来是无辜的，反之亦然.

Brian Mead
The history of treaties and reservations is pretty evil stuff. Wanna be depressed? Read up on it. Sometimes it looks like stuff the Nazis would have done.

评论1：
条约、 （印第安人的）保留区的历史非常的毁三观. 想体验一下郁郁心情吗？ 那就去看看吧
有时那些事看起来像纳粹才做得出来的事情.

David Major
Or Communists. I really don't understand why the Nazis are upheld as some ultimate standard of evil when the scum communists were (are) every bit as bad as the Nazis and maybe worse.

评论2：
还有gczy者. 我真的不明白，gczy者和纳粹一样坏，甚至可能更坏, 而为什么只有纳粹会被认为是邪恶的终极标准.

Mike Down
That may have been the case initially, but once the US started making treaties, they effectively gave ownership of land to various Indian tribes ‘for eternity’ only to break the treaty when they wanted to expand further.There were something like 600 treaties (possibly 800, I forget), and the Americans broke every single one of them. So, by their own laws, they granted territory to Indians on hundreds of occasions, and then took it from them.Sounds like stealing to me.

评论3：
那（强夺豪取土地）可能是最初的情况.
但一旦美国开始制定条约，他们实际上把土地的所有权“永远”地交给了不同的印第安部落，而当美国想要进一步扩张时，却打破了条约.

（美国和印第安部落签订的条约）大约有600个(可能是800个，我忘了). 所有的条约都被美国（政府）违诺了.
因此，根据他们自己的法律，他们数百次把土地还给了印第安人，然后又从他们手中夺走.
这对我来说，像是偷窃.



Hank Simpson
“Did America steal its land from the Native Americans?”Ahem. No. But also no and no and mmmaybe yes.First off, by “America,” you probably mean the United States. As the country came into existence only in 1776, anything that happened before that, however heinous, can't be blamed on “America.” You have to point at those evil fuckers the British, the Spanish, the Dutch and the French. Those rotten, land-stealing bastards, I just don't know how they live with themselves.

回答十：
“美国是不是从美洲原住民那里偷了土地?”
嗯哼，不. 但是不，不，也许是.

首先：
说到“美国”，你可能指的是美利坚合众国. 由于美国是在1776年才诞生的，在此之前发生的任何事情，无论多么令人发指，都不能归咎于“美国”.
你必须指出英国、西班牙、荷兰和法国那些邪恶的混蛋，那些腐烂的，偷土地的混蛋，我是不知道他们是怎么样的人.

Second, peoples throughout history have moved in on other peoples and taken their land, their women and their lives. Shit like this just happened. We all come from thieving, raping, enslaving, murderous stock.And yes, I said ALL. Lest we think of the poor, noble, peaceful Native Americans as helpless victims of the Evil White People, various Indian tribes were routing and killing, raping and enslaving various other Indian tribes for all the time before the EWPs arrived. (Go to Northern Arizona sometime and ask a Hopi what he/she thinks of the Navajo, and why, and you'll get an earful.) Indian >>warriors<< didn't just pop into existence when the Mayflower landed, they existed for all of North American prehistory, and they existed to MAKE WAR, and to defend against the raids of other tribes.It's fairly chic these days to blame the Evil White People for the Horrible Native American Genocide -- and yes, a lot of what happened was horrible -- but the very strong implication in the accusation is that people TODAY are somehow responsible. But … nobody alive today killed the peaceful, defenseless Native Americans, nobody alive today suffered from the killing.(Ditto for slavery. I might also add in both cases that a lot of Americans today, possibly even a majority, are descended from people from Italy, Mexico, Ireland, Scotland, France, Germany, Poland, Russia, the Middle East, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, England, Scandinavia, India, the Philippines -- people who arrived here long after whatever horrible events you might feel like blaming on them.)If my great-great grandfather sold a mule to your great-great grandfather for $50, and the deal was that your great-great paid $30 up front, with the promise of another $20 in 3 months, but he never paid the $20, I don't get to march up to you today and say “Where's my twenty bucks? Pay up, bitch!”If we're blaming today's Evil White People for some heinous act, it should be for something they're actually doing -- like, say, destroying Iraq (thank you, George W. Bush), or failing to help Puerto Rico recover from hurricane damage (thank you, Donald Trump) -- not for something that happened 12 generations ago.I might add that the Native American Genocide also took place in Central and South America, and that it was the Evil Spanish and the Evil Portuguese, those lousy sonsofbitches, who did it there. Not to mention that miserable bastard the Pope, who gave permission and set the boundaries.

第二，纵观历史，各民族都迁入其他民族所住之地，夺取了他们的土地、妇女和生命.
历史就是这样的. 我们都来自偷盗、强奸、奴役、杀戮的群体.

是的，我说完了.
为了不让大家把贫穷、高贵、和平的美国原住民看作邪恶白人作恶的无助受害者，
（我要再次说一下：）在邪恶的白人到达美州之前，北美大陆上的印第安部落一直在追捕、杀害、强奸和奴役其他印第安部落.

(找个时间去亚利桑那北部问问霍皮人对纳瓦霍人的看法，为什么，你就会了解到很多各部落之间的厮杀往事)
印第安战士不仅仅是在五月花登陆的时候出现的，他们存在于整个北美史前时期，他们是为战争而存在的，为了抵御其他部落的袭击.

如今，将可怕的美国原住民种族灭绝归咎于邪恶的白人是相当时髦的事——没错，很多那些往事都很可怕——但这一指控的强烈含义是，今天的人们（北美白人）在某种程度上应该对此负责.
但是，今天活着的人都没有杀害那些和平、无助的美国原住民，今天活着的土着人都没有遭受杀戮.

(与奴隶制同理，我把奴隶制和印第安人的问题放在一起说一下. 你可能要责怪的当今美国人，他们可能大多数是从意大利,墨西哥,爱尔兰,苏格兰,法国,德国,波兰,俄罗斯,中东,中国,越南,柬埔寨,英国,斯堪的纳维亚半岛,印度、菲律宾来到这里的. 以前的那些事件无论多么骇人，都是发生在这些美国人来到北美大陆之前发生的）

如果我的曾曾祖父以50美元把骡子卖给你的曾曾祖父，你的曾曾祖父预先支付30美元，另外的20美元要在3个月后才给. 但是，你的曾曾祖父一直没有支付那20美元. 我今天能跟你说：“什么时候还我20美元. 快还钱，婊子！”吗？

如果我们今天谴责邪恶白人的那些令人发指的行径，那就应该谴责正在进行的“邪恶行径”，比如说，可以谴责入侵伊拉克（布什干的好事），或谴责川普未能帮助波多黎各对抗飓风的破坏. 但是，（我们不应该谴责）12代人之前发生的事情.



Hell, one of the reasons European visitors found this place so inviting was because it was so roomy, so sparsely occupied. It LOOKED like a place that needed settlers.But finally, there's no doubt the United States government broke countless treaties with various Indian tribes. That absolutely sucked, and it continues to be sucky to this day. Will it ever be remedied? Probably not.And one last detail: Years ago, I worked for White Cloud — that was really his name (he also had a court-appointed Americanized last name), and he was a full-blooded Crow Indian. He left the reservation in Oklahoma when he was a young man and went to work in the outside world. It was HIS OPINION that the people who sat on the Rez complaining about history were losers. He and his two sons were all eligible for free housing and health care (he said) if they moved back to Oklahoma, but they were all three clear they would never consider it.

欧洲探险客觉得美州如此吸引人的原因之一是它太宽敞了，人又那么少. 它看起来像是一个需要移民的地方.
但最后，毫无疑问，美国政府撕毁了与各个印第安部落签订的无数条约. 这绝对很恶心.
直至今天也恶心，条约会得到补救吗？ 可能没希望.
最后一个细节: 几年前，我跟一个叫“白云”老板干活——“白云”确实是他的名字(他也有法定的美式姓氏)，

他是一个纯正的克劳部落印第安人. 他年轻时离开了俄克拉何马州的保留地，到外面的世界工作.
他的观点是，坐在“雷兹”号上抱怨历史的人都是失败者.
他和他的两个儿子如果搬回俄克拉荷马州的话，就都有资格获得免费住房和医疗保险(他自己说的)，，但是他们三个都很清楚他们永远不会考虑搬回去.