Is it wrong to say the United States of America was built on stolen land, genocide, and slavery?

name one country that isn't.

Only if you acknowledge every single other civilization was built on the same tactic and methodologies.
Sumer, Egypt, Rome, and even the Aboriginal North Americans-- It's all a story of groups of people forced out of their homes by nature or by other men, going somewhere new, finding out people already live there, then taking their shit.
Picts replaced by Celts, Celts by Romans, Romans by Germans, et c.
Anasazi by Hopi, Hopi by Navajo, Navajo by Spaniards.
And all your precious indians were killing each other over territory and enslaving each other the whole time.
Being mean is just a thing people do, all races all places.

We need to learn and focus on doing better tomorrow.

It large part it was an inevitable clash between two irreconcilable cultures with one side wielding a disproportionate amount of organization and force.

The sad part is that discussions usually end up with one side of unremitting apologists who seek to downplay the brutality, racism and double-dealing that characterized the relationship as wholly unremarkable and natural and another side who seek to cast blanket condemnations and wield history like a moral bludgeon to punish the sons for the sins of the father so to speak.

I'm not defending it as a correct methodology, or a "natural" one.
But it is *human*.
All the duplicitousness of the white man is found in his red neighbor and in all other races in all other places.

The short answer is no.

You have described necessary but not sufficient preconditions for the success of the United States.

What is human is to compare entities. And the conclusion is that Incas were superior to europeans.

t. salty "Noble" native

Do the nobility levels of the natives make any difference?

>All the duplicitousness of the white man is found in his red neighbor and in all other races in all other places.
That comes off less like an objective confrontation with the actual course of US-Indian relations and more like a feeble apology. While it's true, it's a line of argument that doesn't do must besides attempt to veil the reality behind platitudes of human nature. Like if we were talking about American slavery it would come off as tone deaf to bring up how slavery has been found in all cultures and places for millenia.

*much
not must

This, it may sounds like a tiny detail but it's a big deal ensuring that not everything with a high death number gets called a "genocide".

Norway

>implying op isn't a spic

>raids europe for 300 years
>leaves Greenland and Canada because they looked down on the natives and wouldn't adapt to the native life style.

>Muh evil imperialist capitalist eurangutans destroy my native paradise

Didn't the natives chase them away?

Yes, it's a painful reality that everyone has to accept. The majority of civilizations, tribes, people have been killing each other for the longest time. No, that does not justify it, but we have to take it as it is.

The European Immigrants had a choice and they made certain decisions. That's on them. Not on anyone currently, so the whole blame narrative has to take a chill pill. But on the other hand, Americans have to be aware of the history, no matter how dark it may be.

Is that what I said?

It's true, but people who empathize it are either virtue signallers or anti american and looking for gibs from virtue signallers.

It's an essentially meaningless truism.

which United States? Perhaps the United States of Mexico?

>Is it wrong to say
>United States
No, and that's what's great about the U.S.

So? Who cares? Every nation on earth was built upon the backs of the broken and the conquered.

It's true that those things happened, and that America is a guilty country.
I would still say it's wrong though, saying those things *built* America.

>stolen land
Yes
>genocide
Partially
>slavery
Nope. Slave societies can't build shit, and America only truly prospered once they abolished it.

>genocide
that word doesn't mean what you think it means, my friend

whataboutism isn't an excuse

"Other people did it too" is not an excuse.

>stolen land
"conquered land" is not stolen
>genocide
of fucking course. The natives got fucked over by colonists
>slavery
Considering that after the 17th and mid 18th centuries it was confined mostly to the south, no

It was never their land. Land cannot be stolen if it is not owned. Possession without ownership is merely use.
Norwegians have abused Samis for a while now, mate.

It literally is though. Do or get done to, pussy.

>durr survival of the fittest doesn't count cos it hurts my feelings

The game of conquering existed since the beginning of mankind, don't hate the player, hate the game. Either on a local, or global scale.

>American colonization
>African colonization
>Oceanian colonization
>Empire X
>Muh Constantinople
>Muh natives
>we wuz
>gib back rightful clay
No one likes bad losers

as is the most other countries.

Is it wrong to say that Europe was built on stolen land and genocide of the neanderthals?

>genocide

They feared the Inuit warrior.

this guy gets it

Yes, the overwhelming majority of America's wealth and prosperity has been due to industrialization. Stolen land, genocide and slavery was more an impediment than anything else, the actions of small-time thugs looking for short term gain. Had the US freed the slaves and adopted a more conciliatory attitude towards natives, inducting them into their system through trade and other means (as the Romans did with celtic client kingdoms for instance) they would have developed and expanded west more rapidly.

that's how it is on this bitch of an earth

If you can't defend your land, you don't deserve it. That's why Europe will be majority African/Asian in 50-100 years

>this is what revisionists believe about the divinely ordained Manifest Destiny

That's literally what's happening to the eurangutan race being replaced by mexican mongrels and muslkm peasants, but they keep being in denial of their soon extinction.

Incas were superior to europeans though.

>whites get bred out of their ancestral homelands
>SurvivalOfTheFittest.jpg

Fuck off mental midget

God I fucking hate anti-colonialists. It's such a nonsensical position to take, especially when it comes from within the state. I live in Australia, Victoria. They shoved anti-colonial rhetoric down my throat every moment of my school life.
>Whitey stole this land from the Indigenous First Peoples™ through genocide and we must acknowledge the legacy of racist colonialism that persists today.
What do you propose we do about it, if half your assertations are true? Apologise? Give it all back and go back to England? All this talk of "reconciliation" and no real proposal what should be done. The fucking aboriginals achieved equal rights in the 1970s, and now enjoy numerous legal and social advantages over regular Australians. What the fuck do they even want anymore? Why bitch and moan about the very colonisation which pulled the savage out of bestial squalor? If policies of genocide were truly enacted, why do you exist? Why do you deserve anything from me because my ancestors conquered yours? They should be grateful they aren't all dead or enslaved by the Chinese, although there's time enough for that.

Hey incas are superior postere, I found this pic. Thought you might like it.

scratch that, let me compress it a little

that fat dude sitting there is probably in mortal danger

America has never genocided anyone, the natives mostly died from disease which isn't genocide.

yeah it was only a matter of time til they all spontaneously combusted, no harm no foul

relax, it's a photoshop, if you look carefully at the background you can see the fat dude is laying on the grass while the orangatan is on a beach

Stop being naive and applying morality to historical events.

Nah, I wouldn't so much say genocide as much as I would say ethnic cleansing.

Its not the white man's fault he was better at conquering than the natives were at conquering each other.

...

>Its not the white man's fault he was better at conquering than the natives were at conquering each other.

It is the white man's fault he has slaughtered thousands of innocent Native Americans though

I'm glad i checked up on this thread this post destroyed my sides

>better
Wrong. Natives beat the Inca.

Native Americans failed to create a centralized nation state that could resist the invaders.
One exception to this was the Cherokee who were remarkably good at adapting but even then, the Cherokee aristocracy were patrilineally descendes from white men.

>Native Americans failed to create a centralized nation state that could resist the invaders.

And? That doesn't change the fact that white colonizers of the American continent were guilty of ethnic cleansing.

No. It was built on conquest, genocide and slavery.

Basically this: , although I think the main point is that America seems to pretend it's the only country which fights for muh freedoms (and has always fought for muh freedoms).

What the fuck else are you supposed to do? Sit back and say "well, THEY thought they were right"? I agree it's not a very useful exercise to begin with, but if you're going to morally judge them, use your own morals.

''Survival of the fittest'' is a double edged sword. It is easy to support it when you are in the victor's side. When you are in the receiving end though...

"surbibal ub le fiddest" always reminds me of that Tex Avery droopy cartoon set in the old west where the black hat wolf character is about to shoot someone and says "I hate to do this to you, but it's THE LAWWW OF THE WEST".

God I fucking hate anti-immigrants. It's such a nonsensical position to take, especially when it comes from within the state. I live in Australia, Victoria. They shoved anti-immigrant rhetoric down my throat every moment of my school life.
>Immigrants are breeding faster than us, so we should build an ethno state™ through genocide and we must acknowledge the legacy of racist colonialism that persists today.
What do you propose we do about it, if half your assertations are true? stop breeding? Give it all back and go back to where we came from? All this talk of "reconciliation" and no real proposal what should be done. The fucking Whites themselves stole this land, and now enjoy numerous legal and social advantages over the rest of the world. What the fuck do they even want anymore? Why bitch and moan about the very colonisation which they did against the natives? If policies of genocide were truly enacted, why do you exist? Why do you deserve anything from me because your ancestors stole this land? They should be grateful they aren't all dead or enslaved by the Chinese, although there's time enough for that.

White race is primal race

>The fucking Whites
>social advantages over the rest of the world.

Hmm.. sounds familiar

Incas were superior to europeans though.

I know you're being ironic but this is actually a factual statement.

Most of their states fell apart when diseases killed so many people it destroyed their societies. White settlers were merely fighting survivors of an apocalypse.

>On a history board
>Admitting that human civilization has always been dog eat dog is edgy

How about fuck off back to Tumblr?

Based Göring

>they would have developed and expanded west more rapidly
How in your addled mind do you figure this? The primary friction between whites and natives was the unstoppable force of white settlers streaming west into lands natives used for hunting and gathering. In large measure the business of indian relations was conducted not by governments, but by private citizens who set up their settlements on their own initiative with dubious legality and little care what the government had to say about it and were willing to fight indians who lived there to preserve it. I don't believe you realize just how vast the American frontier was, how restless and individualistic the american people were and how meager the US government's tools were to policing it.

Isn't this picture from Canada?

It pretty much does
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genocide

Pic Related

Definition of genocide

: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

>"conquered land" is not stolen
usually where people refer to "stolen land" is the governemtn going back on thier promoses and taking resevation land away from natives.

Indian reservations used to be gigantic.you ever see a map of Indian reservations where there's a ton of little one sprinkled across a large area? that was one big reservation.

>>durr survival of the fittest doesn't count cos it hurts my feelings
sorry for hurting your feelings

>genocide
not really
>stolen land
to a great degree yes
>and slavery
partially yes

noone used it as an excuse

> unremitting apologists who seek to downplay the brutality, racism and double-dealing that characterized the relationship as wholly unremarkable and natural

Its redundant since every country is built on genocide and conquest.

Wrong.

But the sole presence of europeans on America started the disease Apocalipsis to Natives.

>It's not genocide if you do it unintentionally.

>Definition of genocide
>: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

You're just being deliberately obtuse now. What was the reservation system? What was Indian removal? What were the boarding schools? What was all of that if not intentional actions to destroy their culture and identities, which by your definition is GENOCIDE?

>Wrong.
Name one country with no history of violence

Genocide isn't War.

the california genocide was absolutely intentional and done with state backing

When the majority of the Native Americans in the US died from disease resulting from contact with the Europeans and the things you mentioned were explicitly used to Europeanize the Native population rather than actually kill them, I'd say you're being obtuse.

>used to Europeanize the Native population rather than actually kill them
I'd simply liken that to ethnocide, and 2bh that sort of stuff bothers me a lot more.

Not him btw.

>it doesn't matter that there was a deliberate and dedicated policy of ethnic cleansing across the united states by private citizens and federal government alike because small pox ravaged the continent more than a century earlier

It's not really any sort of "-cide" since that postfix involves the actual murder (intentional killing) of a group of people with some particular trait (e.g. regicide: one who murders a king, patricide/matricide: one who murders their father/mother, etc.). The best term for it is cultural replacement, really, since it aptly describes whats going on. I'm not saying that any of it is good at all, or that it really was necessary (it really wasn't and it is very disturbing to see any culture destroyed, in my mind) seeing that I think it's one of the main reasons the Native Americans are so fucked up today. I honestly wished that it didn't happen so that we could see America's golden period (at least in relation to the massive growth of our economy and nations size in general) be less tragic for the Natives and at least integrate them into our society instead of distancing them away from it, so they themselves could experience America's freest and probably most prosperous period in unison with everyone else in the nation.