Hy did te U.S. government create the American Indian reservation system?
While the competing European colonial powers evolved political and legal mechanisms to deal with questions of Native American land title, the United States essentially followed the British model. The core principle was that Native American societies possessed a natural right to the soil as its original occupants. Thus, indigenous lands must be acquired by purchase, primarily negotiated through treaties and agreements. In addition to the treaties, the United States government used the concept of discovery, the rite of conquest, and military force to incorporate indigenous lands into the national fold. In both the colonial period and the years that followed the American Revolution, reservations were an outgrowth of government land acquisition. Before the Revolution, various colonies created reservations that were subsequently recognized by legislatures as Indian reserves. The Second Continental Congress in 1775 established an Indian Department to deal with Indian affairs. After independence, the United States adopted a national policy of Indian administration by Constitutional mandate. The Constitution granted Congress plenary powers over Indian affairs in trade, treaties, warfare, welfare, and the right to take Indian lands for public purposes. After 1778, Congress established federal Indian reservations by federal treaty or statute, conferring to the occupying tribe(s) recognized title over lands and the resources within their boundaries. Despite government promises of protection in exchange for land cessions, Secretary of War Henry Knox in 1789 lamented, "that all the Indian tribes once existing in those States, now the best cultivated and most populous, have become extinct … in a short period, the idea of an Indian on this side of the Mississippi will only be found in the page of the historian." Policy makers in the early republic believed that the attrition of Native Americans and the extinguishing of their reservations was an inevitable consequence of civilization's progress. ANSWER
Why doesn't the EU want to guarantee British citizens the right to stay in exchange for the same from the UK?
Well first of all the UK didn't guarantee anything but made a wish. Why?The EU doesn't own anything to the UK. On this particular matter unlike what the Brexit narrative liked to say, the UK is more needy. The UK needs the EU workers (even the unskilled ones) and tax payers and consumers. If there is no deal the UK will have to take back the 1.3M British nationals and 27 countries will have to absorb the 3M European citizens. Do the math. What those groups are made of? Many retirees (most of them can't afford a decent life in the UK, that's why they don't live there, so more likely to fill the ranks of the poors once back home), unskilled people who managed to open a business in countries with cheaper cost of living, top executives and their families used to good social welfare, good infrastructures, good schools... Good luck with reintegrating them in Britain.When several countries in the EU and EEA are in need of the type of people who emigrated to the UK.But don't you worry, of course there won't be 1.3M people and 3M going home. First of all as usual the wealthiest will find their way in. The Brexit doesn't mean that the UK will stop being the land where whoever waves the paycheck can have a decent life. You know, those people who help keeping the cost of living high? We can bet right here and right now that even if there is no deal, the UK will do the necessary to attract those people she needs. It's not complicated to buy out a visa you know.Even if she doesn't, the EU is not too worried on that matter. Many people will have their lives completely turned upside down, but nothing too dramatic, they can start over elsewhere.To make it short those British people abroad represent 2% of the British population when those 3M represent 0.5% of the EU+EEA population.The UK wanted the Brexit, any good negotiator would let the UK draw the bilateral terms for visas and adapt to it. Having the stronger hand on this one the EU can afford anything the UK has to offer.
Shouldn't African-Americans get reparations since Jews, Japanese and Native Americans got compensation?
Fair would be fair. Please the idiot who wants to answer that Black peole get welfare, don't even say it. Most the people on welfare aren't Black and that is not compensation. If you think of it, if you up lift the Black community it would be good for the whole country.
Why are British people so two faced about immigrants?
I'm not. Thanks for the sweeping generalisation. And Clooney is not a good example. That guy is as straight as a ten bob note. The marriage is a fake and for keeping up appearances. He's not the first A-list Hollywood hunk to do that either, mark my words.
Do you think Australia is a UK extension but a USA wanna be?
Australia is its own country not an extension of the UK.Why would you assume any country in the world is a USA wanna be? They want to trade with the USA, they may want to visit the USA, they want to be friends with the USA (despite the buffoon in power there alienating all its friends and allies) but to be a wanna be USA?A wanna be what? Superpower? Nah, you can keep that. It's costing it's citizens a fortune in defence spending (through the US own choice not because others expect them to do it — if you want to be a superpower you have to show the world your muscles).Big economy? That is partially based on the size of the USA and Australia has 24.6 million people, it's a physically large country but a large part of it is barely habitable desert, so in reality it is small in liveble land mass (ie: farming land, etc). The USA has 327.2 million people with plenty of arable land and liveable land. No comparason.Cultural leader? The big US businesses of Hollywood and TV are always going to sell the ideal image of US culture around the world, but actual US culture is not universally admired now (it used to be but not anymore, sadly).The USA is still a great country (despite Trump) but no country aspires to be the USA, they aspire to be a great country in their own right. Unique in their own right. Australia has certainly achieved that already.
Europeans, what do you think of the Mediterranean Migrant Crisis?
I live in America and I've seen your crisis all over the news. Personally, I think it's disgusting that your governments are allowing those people to stay in Europe. I'd have their butts shipped right back to where they came from. If they want to come to Europe, they need to do it the legal way and stop taking jobs and opportunities from people who are actually citizens of Europe. I've also heard the migrants have such a high crime rate and a lot of them go on welfare. I don't even understand how their ships on the sea keep capsizing. What kind of captains do they have for those things? Are they drinking alcohol while they're supposed to be steering the ships or what? I don't understand how those migrants could even be so stupid as to trust the human traffickers with the rate of ships sinking on the sea. Thoughts? Opinions? What does the overall public of Europe think of the migrants?
Can the UK claim back the USA (13 Colonies) anytime they wish?
That war would last about 15 seconds. I hope it never comes, the U.S. doesn't need another Island to suck up our taxes in Welfare.