美国是否偷窃了印第安人的土地？《一》 [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？《一》



Collette Day（Works at California Highway Patrol，Studied at Paso Robles High）
Just a little something I found in my research:Since we are dealing with a conflict between two nations or races, the white race and the Indian race, we need to turn to the Law of Nations or International Law for the solution. The following are some basic maxims of the International Law:FIRST: That every nation possesses an exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction in its own territory.SECOND: That no state or nation can by its law directly affect or bind property that lies outside of its own territory, or persons not resident therein.THIRD: That whatever force the laws of one country have in another depends solely on the municipal laws of the latter.

科莱特.德（在帕索罗伯斯高中学习，在加州公路巡警工作）
回答一：
我在研究中发现了一点:
由于我们正在处理两个民族或种族之间的冲突，即白人种族和印第安种族的冲突，我们需要求助于国际法来解决这个问题. 以下是国际法的一些基本准则:

第一，每个国家在自己的领土上都拥有专属主权和管辖权.
第二，任何国家或民族都不能根据其法律直接影响或约束其领土以外的财产或非其居民的财产.
第三，一个国家的法律对另一个国家的法律有什么影响，完全取决于后者的国内法律.



The following are some of the laws that were generally held by the Indians:
1. It was a law common among Indians that the stronger of two tribes or people (nations) has the right to conquer and subdue the weaker.
2. Under Indian common law it was understood that land claims existed by inhabiting the land and by any use of the land.
3. When any land was unoccupied or not used for one year, the land was free for anyone to claim and settle.

以下是印第安人普遍遵守的一些法律:
1. 印第安人普遍认为，两个部落或民族中较强的人有权征服和制服较弱的人.
2. 根据印第安人普通法，土地所有权是通过居住和使用土地而存在的.
3. 土地闲置或者闲置一年的，任何人都可以自由占有和安置.

This first law of the Indian could actually render all other arguments of land rights academic. This law was almost a way of life with the Indian, which is why they were always warring among themselves. The wars and conflicts between the white race and the Indian race throughout history were numerous, and the fact that the white race was the stronger cannot be doubted.
According to the third Indian law listed, the white man, or any man or nation, had the right to possess the vast lands that were uninhabited or unclaimed by the Indian in America. Since the Indians never claimed the American continent from Atlantic to Pacific, the lands claimed by right of discovery are valid. Thus, the only legal conflict that can exist lies with the 3% of land the Indian had a legal claim to in America, in accordance to the second Indian law listed.

印第安人的第一条法律实际上可以把所有其他关于土地权利的争论变成学术探讨.这条法律几乎成了印第安人的一种生活方式，这就是为什么他们总是互相争斗.历史上，白人和印第安人之间的战争和冲突数不胜数，白人比印第安人更强大这一事实不容置疑.
根据列出的印第安人的第三条法律，白人，或任何一个人或国家，有权拥有美洲印第安人无人居住或无人认领的广阔土地.

由于印第安人从未声称过从大西洋到太平洋的美洲大陆是属于他们的，所以（白人对）这些土地的发现权是有效的. 因此，唯一可能存在法律上的冲突是：印第安人在美国拥有的那3%的土地. 这是关于印第安人第二条法律的内容.

In spite of the legal right the white race has to America, we often are confronted with the anti-American propaganda that the white race wronged the Indian by attacking and killing them and driving them out of their land. We thus need to look at the first conflicts that existed between the Indians and the colonial settlers. A summary of these first conflicts shows they were always initiated by Indians:6

尽管白人种族对美州有合法的拥有权，但我们经常见到反美宣传，说什么白人种族通过攻击、屠杀印第安人并把他们赶出他们的土地而冤枉了印第安人.
因此，我们需要查看一看印第安人和（白人）殖民定居者之间的第一次冲突，对这些最初的冲突的总结表明，这些冲突总是由印度人发起的：

Shortly after the first colony was established at Jamestown in 1607, the settlers were attacked by the Indians, who wounded seventeen men and killed one boy.

1. 1607年，第一个殖民地在詹姆斯敦建立后不久，殖民者遭到印第安人的袭击，他们打伤了17人，杀死了一个男孩

After the above conflict, peaceful relations prevailed, due to the wise policy of Captain John Smith and the good will of Powhatan, head chief of the Indian Confederacy. When Powhatan died in 1618, his brother Opechancanough, who disliked the English, began to plot war. In March 1622, the Indian tribes went on the warpath, and swept through a line of settlements marked by a trail of blood. Inthe white settlements, nearly 400 men, women, and children, were cruelly put to death before the ravages of the Indians could be checked.For 22 years after the massacre of 1622 there was peace. But Opechancanouch, at last head chief, only waited for another opportunity. In 1644, there was a civil war in England, and he thought the expected moment was at hand. The massacre he waged left over 300 white settlers slain in two days. Again the whites took up arms in defense, and in 1646 the aged chief himself was taken and killed - there was never again a general uprising in Virginia.

2. 在上述冲突之后，由于约翰·史密斯船长的明智政策和印第安邦联首领波瓦坦的善意，和平气氛占了上风.
当波瓦坦在1618年去世时，他的兄弟，讨厌英国人的奥佩查坎诺开始策划挑起战争.
1622年3月，印第安部落踏上了战争的道路，扫荡血洗了一个（白人）定居点，
该定居点的将近400名男人、女人和孩子惨遭毫无节制的印第安人的蹂躏. 被残忍处死.

1622年大屠杀后的22年里，（白人与印第安人）还是和平相处.
但是，这一切的风平浪静只是表面上而已，奥佩钱科纳奇酋长只是在等待一个开战的机会.
1644年，英格兰爆发内战，他认为开战的时机已经出现.
他发起的屠杀在两天内就杀死了300多名白人定居者.
白人只能再次拿起武器进行防御，1646年，这位年迈的酋长才被抓住，然后被处决——此后弗吉尼亚再也没有发生大规模起义.

In the Plymouth colony, a peace compact was established between the Indian chief Massasoit and Governor Carver. As time went on, the friendly old chief died. When his son, King Philip, came to be ruler of the Wampanoag tribe, trouble began to brew for the colonists. Urged on by his braves, King Philip began sending messages to friendly tribes, inviting them to join in a mighty war on the "pale faces." The war that followed was a terrible one. The Indians, avoiding the white troops, dodging them, and never meeting them face to face in the open field, carried on the contest in their savage way of massacring the helpless, and burning villages. Many a fair and quite settlement was made desolate. Women and children were ruthlessly murdered, and burned in the houses. But by the end of 1675 the force of the Indians was broken.

3. 在普利茅斯殖民地，印第安酋长马萨索伊特和总督卡弗达成了和平协议.
后来，这位友好的老酋长死了. 当他的儿子菲利普国王继位成为万帕诺亚格部落的统治者时，他就开始对殖民者酝酿麻烦了.
在他的手下们的鼓动下，菲利普国王开始联结其他的的部落，邀请他们加入一场针对“白色面孔”的强大战争.

后来的的战争非常恐怖，印第安人采取的策略是避开白人军队，从不在开阔的田野上与他们硬刚，而是以野蛮的方式屠杀无助的人，焚烧村庄. 许多美丽而宁静的居民区被夷为平地. 妇女和儿童被残忍地屠杀，被关在房子里烧死.
但是， 到1675年底，印第安人的武装力量被灭了.



Thus it was the Indian who was the intruder and violator of land rights and of his own law. It was the Indian who, in the beginning, wronged the white man. The Indian's treachery, barbaric and warlike manner, and sneak attacks on the colonists was positive proof of the anti-social nature of the red man. This exhibit of the Indian's character caused much distrust of the Indian, and became the "code of conduct" which the Indian continued to live by and uphold in the future.
Thus, the white race has a rightful and legal claim and title to America pursuant to international law, the Indian's law, the law of nature, and by a combination thereof.
by Charles Weisman

因此，（结论就是：）违反土地所有权法律的人是印第安人. 从一开始，印第安人就冤枉了白人定居者.
印第安人的背信弃义、野蛮和好战的行为，以及对定居者的偷袭，都是“红种人”反社会本性的有力证明.

印第安人暴露出来的这种失信于世人的野蛮、好战、背信弃义的本性，后来（竟然）成了他们赖以生存的“行为准则”，他们还不断地维护这种准则.
因此，根据国际法，印第安法，自然法，以及三者的结合，白人对美州拥有合法的所有权.

Harsh Agrawal
Sir, I respectfully disagree to your answer. International law is voluntary law. Every law is derived from jurisprudence. There was no codified law or constitutuion at that time. America's discovery was new to Europeans but it was discovered and inhabited by natives from thousands of years. Your answer hardly do justice. But I have to say its good and detailed.

评论1：
先生，我不赞同你的回答. 国际法是自愿性法律.
每一部法律都是从法学中派生出来的. 当时还没有成文的法律或宪法.

美洲的发现对欧洲人来说是新发现的，但它几千年来是被当地人发现并居住的.
你的回答不公正. 但我不得不说它很好，很详细.

James Nelson
Your comments are all biased and based on white anglo-saxon rubbish, that was used to justify the murder of 100’s of millions of people’s all over the world. What are you going to do when the white man is a small minority in the world? Perhaps you should re-think what is more important - Law or Justice? Also, re-check your history. The first women and children killed in the Indian/Anglo-Saxon wars were Indian, not european. And, the usual white wisdom is “if they do it to us, we’ll do it to them,” so the Indians returned the favor.

评论2：
你的评论有偏见，都是基于撒克逊垃圾白人立场的.
这些垃圾逻辑为白人屠杀全世界数百万生灵的邪恶行径进行辩护.
当白人在世界上占少数时，你打算怎么办?
也许你应该重新思考哪个更重要——法律还是正义?

同时，重新检查你的历史.
第一批在印第安/盎格鲁-撒克逊战争中丧生的妇女和儿童是印第安人，而不是欧洲人.
通常白人的思维是“如果他们这样对我们，我们也会这样对他们”，所以印第安人就以其人之道还治其人之身.

Blaze Kodak
All land is stolen. On nearly every spit of land, the people living there now are not the people who lived there first. If people say “Oh, we should give the land back to the indians”, you should respond by saying, “Well I suppose we should give the British Isles back to the the Romans. And from them to the Celts. And from them to Cro-Magnon. Then to Hiedelbergensis. Hell, scratch that. We have to give all of Europe back to the Neanderthals! And while we’re at it, lets give Asia back to the Denisovans. And Africa to Homo Erectus. No no, give Africa back to Australopithecus. There. All wrongs righted.
Except that fruitcakey image I just described would never work. The hard truth about reality is that living things compete over resources. Those who prove weaker, die. Unsympathetic, but true.

回答二：
世界上所有的土地都是偷来的.
几乎每一块土地，现在住在那上面的人都不是最初的居住民.
如果人们来说“哦，我们应该把土地还给印第安人”，你应该这样回答他:“嗯，我想我们应该把不列颠群岛归还给罗马人，他们再交给凯尔特人，然后再交给克罗马农人，然后再交给Hiedelbergensis人”.

草，大家都从头开始，我们必须把整个欧洲都交给尼安德特人！
然后我们还有得忙： 让亚洲交回到丹尼索瓦人，而非洲则交回到直立古人，不，不，非洲应该交回到南方古猿. 这样大家才理顺.
我上面说的这些，除非大家都发疯了，要不然是永远不会发生的.
这个世界的现实是：所有的生物都竞争资源. 谁弱谁死. 残酷吧，但这就是现实.

James Glenn
Was it stealing when the Chippewa dominated the Sioux and kicked them out of the rich great lakes region onto the horseless barren plains to die? Even the Comanche were a bullied tribe hiding away in the mountains before they caught and mastered the horse, and henceforth created a tribal region greater than the size of Texas. Hmm, I wonder what was required to create such a tribal region. Yes, the domination and expelling of other tribes from the region, which of course required brutality. If you want to argue such tribes acted more honorably than the US government in its treatment towards the natives, I would of course, agree with you… but we are essentially splitting hairs.
Don’t get me wrong. Even from a modern perspective, it’s hard not to pass a little judgement on our forefathers and their treatment/policies towards the American Indian. But the simple fact remains these policies were not unlike what had already been committed in the course of human history. Does that make it ethical, fair, or any less tragic? Of course. not! But again, nearly ALL have jockeyed for power, land, etc. to survive.
Just look at how cutthroat our societies are today and we’re just trying to cushion our already soft lifestyles… it’s not even about survival anymore and we’re still at each other’s throats! It’s hard to judge and be self-righteous when really none of us are innocent.

回答三：
齐佩瓦人征服苏族（注：印第安人的一族），把苏族人赶出富饶的大湖地区，赶进没有马的贫瘠平原， 这算不算“偷窃”苏族人的土地？
就连占领的地区比德克萨斯州还要大的科曼切部落在没有获得马匹、学会训马之前也受尽欺辱，不得不躲进山区里去.

嗯，我想知道像科曼切部落要占领这样一个大的部落地区需要的是什么？
是的，首先需要的是驱逐、征服该地区的其他部落. 这不心狠手辣能行吗？
如果你要争辩说，这些部落在征服其他部落的过程中，他们的征服手段比美国政府的要柔和得多，没有那么残忍，那么，我同意你的观点. 但是，这算是扛精了吧.



These people were then invaded by the Franco-Normans, who then invaded France and then put a large portion of the world into their empire, and eventually came to migrate to the United States, Canada, Australia, which combined constitute nearly 30 million km2.Slavic peoples, Germanic peoples, Celtic peoples, Turkic peoples, Semitic peoples, all of these essentially "stole" someone else's land.

这些地区随后被法诺曼人入侵.
法诺曼人入侵法国，然后将世界的很大一部分地区纳入他们的帝国，并最终迁移到美国,加拿大, 澳大利亚 , 面积加起来接近3000万平方公里.
斯拉夫民族，日耳曼民族，凯尔特民族，突厥民族，闪族民族，所有这些民族基本上都是“偷窃”了别人的土地.

This is even the basis of the Bible, where the Jews were given Israel as their promised land from Yahve.Look at a map of Finno-Ugric peoples:

下图是圣经所描绘的，犹太人从耶和华那里获取以色列地区，作为他们的应许之地.
看看芬兰-乌戈尔人的地图：

Now how do you figure they got there? Well, they moved there. What if someone else lived there?This happened everywhere, in Africa, Asia, etc.Today we would call this "stealing". But for a long time, this was considered acceptable behaviour.

你怎么知悉他们如何获取那片土地 ? 恩，他们迁移到了那里.
如果那里有原住民，那么原住民呢？
这种情况（驱赶原住民）在非洲、亚洲等任何地方都发生过.
今天我们称之为“偷窃”，但在历史上很长的一段时间里，这种行为被认为是可以接受的.

John Chesire
Essentially, yes for the most part. But the answer is not quite that simple. It is very complex. First, it depends upon who or what you mean by "America," and who you mean by "Native Americans." It then depends upon the concept of "ownership" and the legal, moral and ethical transfer of real property - land.

回答五：
基本上，算是“偷窃”. 但是，答案并不那么简单，它非常复杂.
首先，这取决于你所说的“美国”是什么意思，以及你所说的“美洲原住民”是什么意思. 这就涉及到“所有权”的概念和不动产土地的法律、道德、道德转让.

One indicator of land takeover is the concept of Indian Reservations. Although inhabited by indigenous people like the United States, both Canada and Mexico do not have anywhere near the number of Indian reservations as does the U.S. Although those Canadian and Mexican indigenous people may indeed have had their former land taken away by European immigrants, they were not usually moved far away from their land to a reservation, like those in the U.S.

美洲土地被占领，涉及的一个因素是“印第安保留区”的概念.
虽然加拿大和墨西哥也有美国这样的土着人，但这两国的的印第安保留区数量远远比不上美国. 加、墨的土着人可能确实被欧洲移民夺走了他们以前的土地，但是，他们通常不会像美国土着人那样远离自己故土被搬到别的保留地.

One of the most egregious actions – although there were many - was the Indian Removal Act of 1830 under President Jackson. In this effort of ethnic cleansing, the “Five Civilized Tribes” were removed from their native lands in the Southeast and moved to modern day Oklahoma. Trail of Tears

虽然恶劣的行径非常多——但是，最恶劣的行径之一是：1830年杰克逊总统主导下通过的《印第安人迁移法案》.
在该法案主导下的种族清洗运到中，“五文明部落”被迫迁徙，从东南故土移到的今天的俄克拉何马州.

Often following hostilities, native tribes surrendered large tracts of their native land in exchange for small, sovereign reservations. Many of these treaties were signed under duress, and usually at great disadvantage to the natives.Indian removal also took place following the Black Hawk War in 1832. The treaty opened up millions of acres to settlers in the Midwest U.S.that had previously belonged to the Sauk, Fox and other native nations. Those Indians were moved elsewhere to reservations, while a century later I grew up on farmland once 'owned' by those tribes.

印第安人通常在战争冲突之后，被迫放弃大量的土地，以换取较小的生存空间.
很多割让土地的条约都是被迫签订的，而且通常对土着人来说是不平等条约.

1832年黑鹰战争之后，印第安人也开始被迫迁移.
（当时签订的）条约使得原本属于索克、狐狸和其他土着民族的中西部数百万英亩的土地被割让给（欧洲白人）移民.
而原土地上的土着人则被迁移到别的“印第安保留地”，一个世纪之后，我在这些部落曾经“拥有”的农田里长大.



Alonzo Chambers
Although your statement is very strong. Why is it I never see a willingness to give back what was stolen, by people who have the same view about the land they live, or have lived on.

评论3：
虽然你的陈述很有力. 但是，为什么我就从来没有看到有人归还偷窃来的土地呢？
住在或以前曾住在该片土地上而且也持有土地是“偷窃”而来观点的那些人，我怎么从来没看到他们归还土地？