Were the Mormon Pioneers illegal immigrants?

[Tacenda]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why do you think less damage would have been done there?

Spread themselves out, which apparently they did do in most of Utah. Not too sure, just know that this was all new to me well into my forties, the things that happened. I must have missed the boat in learning of things like the MMM and the many Native Americans that were killed off whether by disease, starvation or being murdered. It sure wasn't discussed at all in my growing up years here in Utah in my circle of people. 

Edited July 28, 2019 by Tacenda

[blarsen]

22 minutes ago, USU78 said:

In the aftermath of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_River_Massacre,

That really happened. See also Washakie's Vision.

I'm fully aware of the Bear River Massacre; conducted by California volunteers who thought they were on their way to the Civil War.  But "mass conversion" rather implies forced conversion.  I don't recall that Washakie's vision had anything to do with forced conversion.

[Kenngo1969]

On 7/27/2019 at 2:35 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

I know nothing about Mexican law, so perhaps there is no analogue to this in Mexican law, but in United States law, at least historically, there was the concept of adverse possession.  If a subsequent possessor's claim to a particular piece of land was open, notorious, hostile to that of the original possessor, and endured for the statutorily required time period, the adverse possessor could lay claim to the land, notwithstanding the original possessor's claim.

 

17 hours ago, Danzo said:

I am unaware of any laws where immigration status would restrict an adverse possession claim.  

My claim is not so much that the Saints engaged in adverse possession, since: (a) I doubt Mexican law recognizes the concept, although I'm not sure; and (b) I don't think the Saints' settlement of the former Mexican territory meets all of the criteria of an adverse possession claim (open, notorious, hostile, et cetera).  Rather, it's simply that, since adverse possession (however rare it may be in practice) has never been abandoned, it's not as though there is absolutely no precedent for someone acquiring a claim by moving in, "setting up house," so to speak, and so on.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Well, the COJCOLDS, for one.

I don’t think you understand my question. Since white men have done all that evil stuff to Native Americans, what other contemporary group of people of color would have been better?

[rodheadlee]

This may have already been covered in this thread but how did Mexico acquire the territory that became a part of the United States? What gave them the right to claim it? I tried Googling it but nobody would give me an answer.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Why do you think less damage would have been done there?

http://www.native-languages.org/montana.htm

http://www.native-languages.org/idaho.htm

http://www.native-languages.org/colorado.htm

Just spread out so that so many resources weren't used up and the Native Americans wouldn't have been killed off. ETA: Also, just ran out of posts Calm. So I'll not be able to respond to you right away.

Edited July 29, 2019 by Tacenda

[USU78]

2 hours ago, blarsen said:

I'm fully aware of the Bear River Massacre; conducted by California volunteers who thought they were on their way to the Civil War.  But "mass conversion" rather implies forced conversion.  I don't recall that Washakie's vision had anything to do with forced conversion.

You infer force. Why come?

[USU78]

30 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

This may have already been covered in this thread but how did Mexico acquire the territory that became a part of the United States? What gave them the right to claim it? I tried Googling it but nobody would give me an answer.

Via Writ of Habeas Grabbit.

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, blarsen said:

More like 40K years ago:  the Campi Flegrei caldera near Naples. 

Um no. More like 60K years ago. It was the Lake Toba caldera in Malaysia.

See that lake with the island in the middle? That represents more ash and dust in the atmosphere than the world has seen since. It is just north of the equator, so the northern hemisphere bore the brunt of the results of this explosion for many years. Incidentally, this event was the beginning of the decline of the neanderthals. No, they did not go extinct then, but their numbers reduced drastically. In the southern hemisphere in Africa, modern man fared much better, although modern man also went through a bottleneck event. It was mostly near large bodies of water that neanderthals were able to survive longer, but in such small numbers that they simply vanished into the immigrations of modern man from Africa.

Quote

And according to 23andMe, I have the Neanderthals to thank for a relatively high percent of my genome; emphasis on 'relatively';

what 3-4%? That's about the maximum for any surviving neanderthal genetics - and only in European peoples.

Quote

with apologies to Adam who I think was a real person.

Adam was the first "man" ie isa. That is because the Lord first revealed His word to Adam. Because of the fall, he and Eve were the beginning of the temporal history of the earth. Homo sapiens before Adam were apparently not known as isa.

[rodheadlee]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Via Writ of Habeas Grabbit.

Yep I hereby claim the moon of Jupiter, Europa as Headlee territory by the power invested in me by Admiral Patricia Headlee. Just as soon as I get my antigrav working on SV Second Chance we will arrive and stake our territory out.

Edited July 29, 2019 by rodheadlee

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

This may have already been covered in this thread but how did Mexico acquire the territory that became a part of the United States? What gave them the right to claim it? I tried Googling it but nobody would give me an answer.

I have a friend from my high school in northern New Mexico who is the patron of his family’s hacienda, land granted to them by the King of Spain in the 1600’s. The King also gave land grants to the various Indian Pueblo groups.....who already occupied the land!

How did the Spain gain that authority? See USU 78 above. Writ of habeus  grabbit. (Love that new phrase!)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_grants_in_New_Mexico

Edited July 29, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[blarsen]

4 hours ago, USU78 said:

You infer force. Why come?

Slight conotation; where "battles with and mass conversion of" follows on the heels of "most were" .   Either way, "Mass conversion" seems a bit hyperbolic.  All of his tribe, or what?  I recall there were conversions, but never thought it was anywhere near a "mass conversion".  Set me right if you have knowledge on this.

[blarsen]

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Um no. More like 60K years ago. It was the Lake Toba caldera in Malaysia.

See that lake with the island in the middle? That represents more ash and dust in the atmosphere than the world has seen since. It is just north of the equator, so the northern hemisphere bore the brunt of the results of this explosion for many years. Incidentally, this event was the beginning of the decline of the neanderthals. No, they did not go extinct then, but their numbers reduced drastically. In the southern hemisphere in Africa, modern man fared much better, although modern man also went through a bottleneck event. It was mostly near large bodies of water that neanderthals were able to survive longer, but in such small numbers that they simply vanished into the immigrations of modern man from Africa.

what 3-4%? That's about the maximum for any surviving neanderthal genetics - and only in European peoples.

Adam was the first "man" ie isa. That is because the Lord first revealed His word to Adam. Because of the fall, he and Eve were the beginning of the temporal history of the earth. Homo sapiens before Adam were apparently not known as isa.

A recent documentary I watched tagged the 39-40K BP eruption of the Italian Campi Flegrei caldera, in the environs of Naples, as the one that delivered the near coup de grace to European and perhaps western Asian Neanderthal.  See  https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101006094057.htm from 2010 that gives some coverage to this idea.

I'm allegedly around 1.7-1.8 % Neanderthal, as I recall.  How about you?

Can you elaborate on "isa"?  Sounds intriguing.  Do you have a time-frame for isa?  And how does isa fit in w/pre-Adamic hominids, if at all?

Edited July 29, 2019 by blarsen

[Stargazer]

On 7/27/2019 at 3:53 PM, LoudmouthMormon said:

As evidence of my earlier claim, let me translate into what certain folks will hear:

1066 to present: white guys
927 - 1066: white guys
827 - 927: white guys
477 - 827: white guys
410 - 477: white guys
43 - 410: white guys
75 BC - 43 AD: white guys
Before 75 BC: peaceful pagan white guys who just wanted to sit in meadows and dance and have blissful pagan sex under the harvest moon

 

Uh, not quite.  For a start, yes, all white guys. Not sure what you're trying to say here, but whatever.  I shall first of all take exception with your "peaceful pagan white guys."  Pagans were not inherently peaceful.  And neither was the Druidic religion inherently peaceful.  Unless you're trying to say that it is certain misguided modern types who have the idea that druidism was what you're suggesting?  

Also the Roman Empire pre-Constantine, was not Christian.  Still less the Western Roman Empire.  There's an archaeological site near me that has both Celtic and Roman pagan religious significance.  Post 410 AD when Rome abandoned Britain, whatever Christianity had been set up here virtually disappeared, and it wasn't until the 800s that it started coming back.

 

[Stargazer]

On 7/27/2019 at 6:24 PM, Mormon Dude said:

It's all semantics. Illegal immigrants, invaders, "without permission," whatever you call it, the laws I linked to are clear. And when they're broken, there is nothing wrong with calling said action "illegal." Things were very different in the 1800s versus 1066 and 75 BCE, so who is calling the kettle black?

While Mexico was not able to hold on to their claim, said claim (which was legally recognized by the US in the Treaty of Limits) was not legally extinguished until the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe. In my OP I pointed out even the US Supreme Court indicated "Deseret" belonged to Mexico until 1848. US laws cannot be applied ex post facto onto territory that was not theirs.

Not saying they they could. You seem to be thinking that I'm trying to excuse something. I'm not.  I am talking reality.

All countries act in their own perceived interests.  It's sometimes difficult to see how any such acts are "moral" or right.  What difference does the year make to the kettle?  If the US broke its own law, what else is new?  Ultimately, the settlement of the Americas by Europeans was one long invasion, and the rights of all those who lived there already were trampled on without compunction. But another point I was making in my rather long post was the this is nothing new, because the American natives had been doing the exact same things to each other for thousands of years, so who has clean hands when all is said and done?  If the people in the Americas had crawled out of the stone age before those in Europe, they would have done the exact same things in Europe that the Europeans did in the Americas.  We're talking about human beings here.

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Unless you're trying to say that it is certain misguided modern types who have the idea that druidism was what you're suggesting?  

I am pretty sure he is being sarcastic. I think this is the earlier post he was referring to:  http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72075-were-the-mormon-pioneers-illegal-immigrants/?do=findComment&comment=1209918939

 

Edited July 29, 2019 by Calm

[Stargazer]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am pretty sure he is being sarcastic. I think this is the earlier post he was referring to:  http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72075-were-the-mormon-pioneers-illegal-immigrants/?do=findComment&comment=1209918939

 

Yes, it sounded like that to me, too.  But another part of me wanted to take his comment seriously, for some reason.  Sometimes I think I am two people. One who treats things with logic and reason, and the other that just reacts to stuff.  Depending upon the time of day it's either one or the other that gets to type these posts.

[USU78]

6 hours ago, blarsen said:

Slight conotation; where "battles with and mass conversion of" follows on the heels of "most were" .   Either way, "Mass conversion" seems a bit hyperbolic.  All of his tribe, or what?  I recall there were conversions, but never thought it was anywhere near a "mass conversion".  Set me right if you have knowledge on this.

Local Mormons took in the survivors, arranged housing and subsistence, most of them ended up converting. The town of Washakie resulted, which I remember well, but which was pretty much abandoned at the Time I knew it.

The nw band of the Shoshone is still around, mostly living in northern Utah and se Idaho. I went to school with the great great grandchildren of the survivors.

No forced conversions. Just candy and gratitude.

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, blarsen said:

Slight conotation; where "battles with and mass conversion of" follows on the heels of "most were" .   Either way, "Mass conversion" seems a bit hyperbolic.  All of his tribe, or what?  I recall there were conversions, but never thought it was anywhere near a "mass conversion".  Set me right if you have knowledge on this.

From what I read it was every remaining member of the group except for one and he was not baptized due to a phobia of water.

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Good.  I'm glad.  If very nearly less than nothing came out of this exchange, there is that.  

You probably should not be rolling your eyes when you started the tangent.

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Uh, not quite.  For a start, yes, all white guys. Not sure what you're trying to say here, but whatever.  I shall first of all take exception with your "peaceful pagan white guys."  Pagans were not inherently peaceful.  And neither was the Druidic religion inherently peaceful.  Unless you're trying to say that it is certain misguided modern types who have the idea that druidism was what you're suggesting?  

Also the Roman Empire pre-Constantine, was not Christian.  Still less the Western Roman Empire.  There's an archaeological site near me that has both Celtic and Roman pagan religious significance.  Post 410 AD when Rome abandoned Britain, whatever Christianity had been set up here virtually disappeared, and it wasn't until the 800s that it started coming back.

 

Pretty sure his comment was a bit of sarcasm. I chuckled when I first read it.

Interesting history about your area. In today’s social justice mode, then, sounds like everyone who lives there merits some sort of reparation payments. Except you, of course. As the newcomer, you would have to pay all of them. 

 

Edited July 29, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[blarsen]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Not saying they they could. You seem to be thinking that I'm trying to excuse something. I'm not.  I am talking reality.

All countries act in their own perceived interests.  It's sometimes difficult to see how any such acts are "moral" or right.  What difference does the year make to the kettle?  If the US broke its own law, what else is new?  Ultimately, the settlement of the Americas by Europeans was one long invasion, and the rights of all those who lived there already were trampled on without compunction. But another point I was making in my rather long post was the this is nothing new, because the American natives had been doing the exact same things to each other for thousands of years, so who has clean hands when all is said and done?  If the people in the Americas had crawled out of the stone age before those in Europe, they would have done the exact same things in Europe that the Europeans did in the Americas.  We're talking about human beings here.

I generally agree, but not quite w/"trample on without compunction".  For instance, the earliest English colonizers, or would be colonizers, in the 1580s encountered almost deadly rivalry between Indian groups they encountered, even essentially allying with one, and having run-ins with the other.  There were Indain raids coming all the way down to Mass. from the St. Lawrence who raided and captured almost whole towns in later 1600s, etc., etc.    Then the piccture gets more confusing w/the French/Indian alliance against England and the settlers under their banner.  The general attitude of the settlers toward the Indians as "wild and blood-thirsty savages", didn't arise in a vacuum.

That being said, the Indians were essentially overwhelmed by technology and a markedly different culture, carried by unstoppable hoards coming in from Europe.

Edited July 29, 2019 by blarsen

[blarsen]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

From what I read it was every remaining member of the group except for one and he was not baptized due to a phobia of water.

OK.  So you're saying survivors of the Bear River massacre.  I'd not heard this.  If so, you could probably make the case that they may have been scared into conversion.  I think this episode is different than Washakie's vision and much later conversion along w/some members of his tribe.

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, blarsen said:

OK.  So you're saying survivors of the Bear River massacre.  I'd not heard this.  If so, you could probably make the case that they may have been scared into conversion.  I think this episode is different than Washakie's vision and much later conversion along w/some members of his tribe.

I don't know how you separate Washakie's vision and the band's remnants' several decisions to be baptized.  The former would have been known by most if not all of the participants in the very one-sided battle.  Please explain.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, blarsen said:

OK.  So you're saying survivors of the Bear River massacre.  I'd not heard this.  If so, you could probably make the case that they may have been scared into conversion.  I think this episode is different than Washakie's vision and much later conversion along w/some members of his tribe.

If I remember right the conversions did not come until around ten years after the massacre. It is unlikely it was motivated solely or even primarily by fear from what happened a decade ago. The vision did influence Chief Sagwitch’s decision but it was not his vision.