"Race relations are going to fuck this country's shit up"

That's were is refuted.
>i support colonization
Isn't it obvious? Amerindians had a higher development rate compared to europeans, in other words Amerindians have more civilization potential than europeans. The logical conclusion is support America belonging to Amerindians. It's for the greater good. How is this hard to get?

>Solutrean theory
Into the trash it goes.

>Refuted
Nothing's been "refuted". Because I support my ancestors' colonization of this land I should lay down and accept someone else doing the same? I understand the principle but things aren't that black and white, Christ. If Indios want this land they can have it when we're all dead, doesn't mean I want/support it
>Amerindians had a higher development rate
>Lumping all Amerindians into one group
Incans =/= Iroquois, Aztec =/= Cahokia. North American Indians were doomed from the beginning, you think contact would never have happened? You think they'd magically develop the anitbodies to repel the various Old World diseases? Doesn't matter what potential they HAD because that's long in the past. Most now speak Spanish or chug Listerine on the rez
>It's for the greater good. How is this hard to get?
Because it's an impractical fantasy you conjured up

When will Amerindians be deported to Siberia then?

It was so obvious that even a frenchman could see it.

>refuted
Of course it has. America in 1492 is Amerindian land. Stolen land by europeans is only validated by "might makes right", yet even immigrants are overwhelming europeans in America. Only irrational tribalism doesn't support America belonging to Amerindians, as Amerindians have more civilization potential. It's for the greater good.
>lumping amerindians
Except they are more related to each other compared to europeans. All of them are Amerindians.
>impractical
Impractical is to maintain a lesser breed of humans in charge of Amerindian land.

The logical conclusion is self-evident. America belongs to Amerindians the same as europe belongs to europeans.

When europeans go back to the middle east.
America belongs to Amerindians the same as europe belongs to europeans. How is this hard to get?

I really can't tell if Amerindian poster is baiting or not, because of how seriously he takes it. He's really making me want to filter out the word though

According to his logic, Alaskan Eskimos are more advanced than medieval Europeans, what a fucking joke.

no, there was a lot of slaves becoming free, and a lot of plantation owns that really didn't like that

*were

According to that "logic"(history) Amerindians have demonstrated a higher development rate compared to europeans. If you want to claim that siberians had a higher developmwnt rate compared to europeans, why don't you show us the dates of frame reference?

I think so, for the observation that America was great because Americans were good; and that for America to cease being a great nation, all it would require is for Americans to no longer be good.

We're there.

This is definitely bait, but on the offhand chance you're an autistic teenager, I'll bite
>Stolen land
That's the cycle of human history. Group X conquers group Y. Whether or not you like it or not that's how things have operated for the past 12,000 years.
>irrational tribalism
Newsflash, the human intelligence came to fruition tens of thousands of years ago; you think that by virtue of your being born in this time that places you above them? Man is a hierarchical/tribal species and instead of trying to work against nature why not try working with it? The nation is the mega-tribe and I'll defend this "stolen land" with my last breath
>Amerindians have more civilization potential
You keep parroting this but you think this held over into today? American Indian culture has been completely and utterly skull-fucked. It's only alive in pockets of North America and the mountains of South America. You have instead a hybridized Indio-Iberian culture starting South of the Rio Grande.
>Except they are more related to each other compared to europeans. All of them are Amerindians.
And Europeans are more related to Arabs than to American Indians, what's your point? That because they're more closely related you can claim the two had the same propensity for Empire?
>Impractical is to maintain a lesser breed of humans in charge of Amerindian land.
Yeah, that would mean handing it back to the American Indians. Clearly a lesser breed of human who could not handle pathogens. Way to completely ignore my point on this. You want this land back? Come and take it. You can cry about "might makes right" all you want but note I never said this was right or moral, it just is. Life is a struggle and those unwilling to fight deserve what they get, and what you got was conquest

Okay so why didn’t Alaskan Eskimos developed civilizations if they had a higher development rate than Europeans? I doubt they created architecture that could rival that of European Cathedrals.

>higher development rate
>piggybacking on European/Asian achievement without doing any of the mental lifting
Europe and Asia lifted the mental state of the world, Amerindians didn't.