Your comments don’t seem to address any of this. Why is that?
Because that’s not at all what the original comment was about. Why am I expected to offer up a treatise on the consequences of apples on the American frontier in order to debunk someone purporting – unsubstantiated and evidently with no regard for the truth – that Appleseed was running “a land grab scam based on the laws of the time”?
Edit: I guess since the original comment mentioned it, I could mention the obvious that, no shit, this was stolen land just like effectively every parcel of US land. But what good does this do our discussion of Appleseed’s character as an alleged scam artist? It’s generally understood that Appleseed had a very good relationship with the Native Americans he encountered, and yes, sometimes you can be an overall well-meaning person while advancing a deeply unethical system.
Because that’s not at all what the original comment was about. Why am I expected to offer up a treatise on the consequences of apples on the American frontier in order to debunk someone purporting – unsubstantiated and evidently with no regard for the truth – that Appleseed was running “a land grab scam based on the laws of the time”?
Edit: I guess since the original comment mentioned it, I could mention the obvious that, no shit, this was stolen land just like effectively every parcel of US land. But what good does this do our discussion of Appleseed’s character as an alleged scam artist? It’s generally understood that Appleseed had a very good relationship with the Native Americans he encountered, and yes, sometimes you can be an overall well-meaning person while advancing a deeply unethical system.
Thank you for the further context. The original tone of the comment I replied to could have been construed as support.