Land, Owning land, Sharing land, Defending land, Etc.

[NedFlanders]

You feel the same way about random people off the street who aren't members of your church?

When we house churched there were people off the street I might have trusted more than the people that were coming to our house.

After six years of living in this home I had a key made as we were gone for a bit in the summer and my wife wanted the option of our sixteen year old to be able to lock our house when he was home alone.

I’m sick of the responsibility of stuff anyway, I just have a home to house my family - other than providing for my family it means absolutely nothing to me.

Just to clarify, your 16 year old doesn't share your beliefs and started locking up the house? Afraid of a Boogeyman? My parents lock but I don't and I am with you on the "stuff". The only thing I would miss if my house went up in smoke would be my books. The roof drips water in my bedroom during rainstorms.

No, more my wife wanting a sense of security. I’m not sure if he even locked the house but she felt better…. Our second basement door is shifted enough the deadbolt can’t lock and the door handle is busted and so it doesn’t lock - but I didn’t bother reminding her of that.

[Ernie]

Were they glad to share it? This is idealizing the "Noble Savage" just a touch. Ask the Susquehannocks how glad they felt to share the land with the 5 nations of the Iroquois.

They were not glad to share it with people who took advantage of them. They were not non-resistant.

[HondurasKeiser]

Were they glad to share it? This is idealizing the "Noble Savage" just a touch. Ask the Susquehannocks how glad they felt to share the land with the 5 nations of the Iroquois.

They were not glad to share it with people who took advantage of them. They were not non-resistant.

I think you're painting with a broad and generous brush in one direction and a parsimonious one in the other. The history and relationship of the colonists and natives of New England as a case study suggests the history is far more nuanced than you're suggesting.

[Ken]

Were they glad to share it? This is idealizing the "Noble Savage" just a touch. Ask the Susquehannocks how glad they felt to share the land with the 5 nations of the Iroquois.

They were not glad to share it with people who took advantage of them. They were not non-resistant.

Native Americans were never any sort of egalitarian "share with everyone" sort of people.

They were tribal. And in most Native American tribal societies there was common ownership and sharing of land and resources for both agriculture and hunting/fishing WITHIN the tribe. But that really only extended out to the boundaries of the tribe. Native American tribes fought constant wars against each other for control over tribal hunting and fishing lands. War was a persistent reality in pre-Columbian North America. And it was usually about access to or control over territory, trade routes, and so forth.

For example, the Huron and Iroquois were in something of an endless state of war for this reason. As were tribes in all other regions of North America. In the desert southwest, the Comanche and Apache were in more or less a constant state of war for control over territory during the 17th and 18th centuries. And in the northern plains there was constant movement and displacement as various tribes fought for territory. The Mandan and Souix/Dakota were in constant conflict. As were the Blackfeet and Crow further west.

[RZehr]

Were they glad to share it? This is idealizing the "Noble Savage" just a touch. Ask the Susquehannocks how glad they felt to share the land with the 5 nations of the Iroquois.

They were not glad to share it with people who took advantage of them. They were not non-resistant.

Native Americans were never any sort of egalitarian "share with everyone" sort of people.

They were tribal. And in most Native American tribal societies there was common ownership and sharing of land and resources for both agriculture and hunting/fishing WITHIN the tribe. But that really only extended out to the boundaries of the tribe. Native American tribes fought constant wars against each other for control over tribal hunting and fishing lands. War was a persistent reality in pre-Columbian North America. And it was usually about access to or control over territory, trade routes, and so forth.

For example, the Huron and Iroquois were in something of an endless state of war for this reason. As were tribes in all other regions of North America. In the desert southwest, the Comanche and Apache were in more or less a constant state of war for control over territory during the 17th and 18th centuries. And in the northern plains there was constant movement and displacement as various tribes fought for territory. The Mandan and Souix/Dakota were in constant conflict. As were the Blackfeet and Crow further west.

I 100% agree. They fought. No tribe or nation on earth happily shares as long as they are filled with sin. The Native Americans are and were, no different. They must have had at some point fairly decent civilizations, at least according to history. But that is a different matter. We too, have shared lands. National Forests, parks, etc. Sure we have specifics that govern these lands today. We also have environmental laws that govern our use of the publicly owned air and water, which are now valuable resources as well. So the Indians may have had some different specifics, but what they had may not have been completely unrecognizable.

[ohio jones]

Were they glad to share it? This is idealizing the "Noble Savage" just a touch. Ask the Susquehannocks how glad they felt to share the land with the 5 nations of the Iroquois.

They were not glad to share it with people who took advantage of them. They were not non-resistant.

They were not even glad to share it with people who did not take advantage of them (e.g. the Northkill Amish), whose presence was facilitated by people who did take advantage of them (e.g. the Penn family).

But now they are asking Mennonites to share land with them.

[RZehr]

But now they are asking Mennonites to share land with them.

I hope the Mennonites accommodate their request. Seems like a decent thing to do.

[Ernie]

Were they glad to share it? This is idealizing the "Noble Savage" just a touch. Ask the Susquehannocks how glad they felt to share the land with the 5 nations of the Iroquois.

They were not glad to share it with people who took advantage of them. They were not non-resistant.

I think you're painting with a broad and generous brush in one direction and a parsimonious one in the other. The history and relationship of the colonists and natives of New England as a case study suggests the history is far more nuanced than you're suggesting.

The Lenape/Delaware were a generally peaceful group as long as they were treated respectfully. But yes, you can probably find some exceptions among them.

[Grace]

Were they glad to share it? This is idealizing the "Noble Savage" just a touch. Ask the Susquehannocks how glad they felt to share the land with the 5 nations of the Iroquois.

They were not glad to share it with people who took advantage of them. They were not non-resistant.

They were not even glad to share it with people who did not take advantage of them (e.g. the Northkill Amish), whose presence was facilitated by people who did take advantage of them (e.g. the Penn family).

But now they are asking Mennonites to share land with them.

Would it be a good idea to offer the book "Jacob's Choice" to the Lenape leaders? The brutality in the events of the Jacob Hochstetler family was very hard to read. Torturing Mrs. Hochstetler before they brutally murdered her. Killing an injured son and scalping the Hochstetler's little girl. Then taking the rest of the family captive. When the attack on the family began Jacob told his little girl to run and hide. After Jacob was taken captive he wondered if his little girl escaped, but then he saw her scalp hanging on one of the Indian's scalp belt.

https://heraldpress.com/9780836198751/jacobs-choice/

[barnhart]

Grace, I'm not in favor of that. It seems like an idea designed to renew and sustain ill will rather than heal and repent.