So this meme

is it accurate or false?

>10 million natives at the time of white man arrival
>they somehow have a claim on every square inch of the americas despite not even being settled with in hundreds of miles of rhode island

False

That man is suppose to be a Sioux or some other northern tribe. 1492 is obviously in reference to Columbus but that all the way in the Caribbean which was inhabited by people like the Taino. It's like the person who made this doesn't even know anything about Native Americans and views them all as the same.

What is the difference between Genocide and a Superior military outright destroying an inferior force?

usuallu the fact that you can only fight combatanats

although the natives didnt understand (or respect) this "rule of war", so it ended up being civilians fighting most of the time. they would get btfoed by the europeans

so Natives were most likely to attack woman and children than the Colonists?

Well to be fair, plague wiped out 90℅ of all of them, smallpox and the like. They probably inhabited a lot more then.

False

The Colonists never had any intent for genocide

not comparable to Nazis and Jews

False.

Native Americans understood statesmenship just as well as europeans, with a few hiccups in some details.

More often than not they were at war with eachother, or acting in alliance with the european colonists. They didn't start losing ground until basically every war from the french and indian war where the Wabanaki get btfo, then the Revolutionary war splits up the Iroquois, then the Creek get uppity and so on and so on.

After they just keep getting manifested in the destiny, getting pacified and stuck on the reservations until we finally get to the apaches.

They ain't native, so no.

Hitler was inspired by native reservations for his own concentration camps.

By this logic Europeans aren't native either, just African migrants.

Wouldn't the Nenaderthals be considered "native" considering heidelbergensis gave rise to neanderthalensis in that area?

It's absolutely accurate, and there's literally no evidence behind the smallpox bullshit.

>African
It's not like Africans settled the entire continent in one swoop. Everyone is an Ethiopian migrant.

Yes and they got genocided by humans. Basically descendants now (Europeans and Middleastern people) are rape babies like Latin american people today.

>Yes and they got genocided by humans
Doubtful.

Most Native Americans were killed by diseases, this is a historical fact

the colonists never had INTENT to kill the Natives


piece of shit liberal bitch

And the "Native" Americans. Abos have some, but it's primarily Denisovan for them.

>superior military
>muh white man's guns meme

Smallpox caused like 96% of Indian deaths.

Pretty sure he was being sarcastic so fucking calm down Cletus. And yes, some Europeans did want to kill the natives. Why else did the US fund scalphunters you fucking moron. It wasn't a coordinated attempt at genocide by every white person, but you're retarded if you think all the whites were innocent. The last free settlement of Indians was killed in the 30s at Wounded Knee for no fucking reason.

I meant 1890

if that was immigration, does that mean immigrants today are invaders?

I was playing Call of Duty Zombies the other night with my friend and while we were being bombarded with every increasing waves of zombies it got me thinking that this must have very similar to what the Natives experienced as the settlers starting settling.

Real talk, that's actually... pretty deep.

Conquest =\= immigration. Plus they fucking us with their casinos, they are doing fine.

>What is the difference between Genocide and a Superior military outright destroying an inferior force?
the superior military force doesnt make a point of killing the women and children as well


its a bit of a generalisation but broadly correct, the colonists often illegally settled on lands 'given' to the indians by treaty, and certainly used terror tactics against the natives on occassion.

however the natives did also on occassion use terror tactics as well

>using a people destroyed by ethnic displacement as an example of why we should tolerate ethnic displacement

Why do liberals think this is an argument that works in their favour?

Odd how people complain about Cristobal Colon, who never set foot on (future) US soil.

Prior to Chavez and his retarded ideology, dia de la raza (day of the race, equivalent to columbus day), was celebrated by every latin american country. Nowadays, Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia, and I think Ecuador don't celebrate it

What's with all the shit about native "genocide" lately?

they did a shit job at it though

It's more pointing out that everyone in the US is an immigrant except the natives. So xenophobic sentiments don't make any sense since 98% of americans are migrants. As such the only ones who deserve any say on immigration in the US are amerindians.

Xenophobic sentiments absolutely make sense, because if the Indians had put up a better fight, and much earlier, they wouldn't have gotten their shit pushed in. But then again, diseases.

t. Yaqui Indian from the Southwest. Spent 200 years shooting at the Spanish, then assimilated on their terms when the Jesuits showed up

Bullshit

that is just anti-white bullshit

Liberals have little understanding of how violence between 2 groups can emerge, they just see it as good guys versus bad guys.

>despite not even being settled with in hundreds of miles of rhode island

>the colonists never had INTENT to kill the Natives

It's not the Indians didn't put up a better fight it's that they were too busy fighting amongst themselves and dealing with waves of diseases at the same time. The only indians who had a shot were the Incas, since they controlled massive territory and could have put up a good defense with their sheer numbers, more advanced weapons, varied terrain and effecient communication methods. But the Spaniards were extremely lucky in that they happened to come during a civil war and just had to pick a side.

The nation of America as it exists and was founded is an entirely European invention. Injuns have fuck all to do with it despite being native to the land.

I just thought of it as a funny little joke, never thought I would see so many fags triggered and offended by it.

The Iroquois may have influenced notions of democracy and liberty to Enlightenment era people and possibly the US constitution. They also had an influence in capitalism so cherished in the US.

If drinking firewater and stealing things is security then yeah

Not an arguement stormfag. The Europeans and indigenous people killed eachother.

Sources.

>u shud file guilty 4 ur ansext0rs conquering

Good one, Billybob. You sure showed me.

>every liberal is a moral absolutist
>moral dichotomies are unique to liberals

Gee maybe conquests from a few centuries ago are more relevant to the current state of the world than unorganized conflict between random hunter gatherer bands from 100,000 years ago

didnt they scalp colonists?

You made the claim, you back it up chief sore ass

Some tribes practiced scalping

who the fuck celebrates that? certainly not here in chile