I just find this take utterly childish, as if a kind of implicid morality pervades the universe to ascribe land to some groups as if by an all encompassing, predetermined and unwritten judicial system.
Land belongs to whoever can defend it. The evolutionarily fittest tribes prevail and the weaker ones get eradicated. This is nature's call for excellence to triumph over mediocrity, and this is the only justice that predates the egalitarian fantasies created by human beings.
Other urls found in this thread:
heritageofjapan.wordpress.com
twitter.com
blah blah blah
>Land belongs to whoever can defend it.
This logic would excuse all forms of thievery, though. I'm not responsible for stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars, the bank should have just defended it better.
You're absolutely right. The US holds the Black Hills because the Lakota couldn't defend it. And the Lakota held the Black Hills because the Cheyenne couldn't defend it.
The US holds most of Georgia because the Creek and Cherokee couldn't defend it. The Creek and Cherokee held Georgia because the Mound Builders couldn't hold it.
I don't get it either, they act as if they weren't scalping eachother on the daily before europeans came along. This is probably one of the only instances in history, where a majority is gaslit into feeling bad for winning in a war and actively fights against its own self interests. You don't see mongolians apologizing for what genghis did, nor should they.
Okay chang
I'm an Indian. We lost. The white man won. This continent is better with the white man. Niggers and Jews can get out.
It does make sense though, the majority of countries in human history were formed via violence, whether it be revolutionary or projected outwards, but for some reason only the US and Canada it seems are some of the only countries in history that have to feel bad for it.
>Stolen
More like conquered. Native Americans didn't have a concept of ownership anyway.