Better for who and by what right? I will actually side with Kitsumekat on this point, as I invite her to think about her own personal hypocrisy. She recognized that the Native Americans did no wrong by trying to hold onto their own lands and own identity by trying to limit immigration into their own countries, but at the same time insists that Native Europeans must be racists if they advocate doing the exact same thing on behalf of their own countries and their own identities. It's a double standard.

Not that she seems to be the only one who seems to have those. You seem to be in favor of preserving the identities of the European countries. I have no objection to that, but then you adopt a double standard of your own by saying that the Europeans did no wrong in forcibly dispossessing the Native American nations and destroying their identities and ways of life. In your own clumsy, redneckish way you even try to act as if you were the voice of decency, writing

"Fuck off with your delusional shit. And don't even start with 'muh living close to nature', you wouldn't last a month in the wild, you prick."

which might be true in Kitsumekat's case (or might not), but is irrelevant, either way. The Native Americans of that era were surviving "in the wild" just fine, and didn't seem to mind doing so, at all. They had their own potential future to pursue in their own way, and they were denied the freedom to do so.

The defense you offer of this is morally repugnant. "They took the land and used it for better purposes." If I were richer than you, would that give me the right to throw you out of your own home to put up a palace on its spot, without your consent? No, because that's not how property rights work, except when thugs or crooked politicians get involved. Your property is your property, and their property was their property, and thievery is thievery.

"The surviving natives could enjoy the full extent of the facilities created by the 'invaders'. I do not see a problem."

You're trying to deny that the Native American nations were invaded and conquered? Seriously? What is the problem? Aside from the sheer arrogance of the assumption that the incoming Europeans would have the right to make that decision for the Native Americans by force, and the destruction of the identity and civilizations of the natives? How about the fact that you are full of shit, and every American school child who ever paid attention in class knows why you are full of shit? The "surviving natives" could not usually "enjoy the full extent of the facilities", because they were usually forcibly uprooted and transported to lands too barren to support their numbers in a massive campaign of ethnic cleansing that left still more of them dead. And how very interesting that you feel that the Native Americans who didn't survive, didn't matter - would you like to see that theory applied to White people? If a few million of you get killed, that's fine and dandy as long as there are community centers for the tiny remnant of you who aren't slaughtered? What kind of system of law is that?

But again, as absurd as that would be, even that is not applicable to this case. The Native Americans were denied even the meager comfort that the Nazis gave to their victims, of at least having motorized transportation as they went off to their doom. Sure, that motorized transportation took the form of cattlecars, not really the most luxurious way of getting around, but that was positively heavenly compared to what the Cherokee (who had lived in real cities, you ignorant racist fuck) got to enjoy, to give a well known example of the "civilized" treatment the Native Americans could hope to see at the hands of their Anglo-Saxon occupiers. After Andrew Jackson, in an act that American Conservatives have been ignorantly celebrating for years, ignored the correct decision of the Supreme Court to uphold the treaty rights of the Cherokee Nation (as he supported the curious theory held in Georgia that having stolen the bulk of the Native lands entitled the "civilized" white folk to steal the rest), the Cherokee were force marched on foot, hundreds of miles, marched through the snow and they lost a quarter of their population along the way. How exactly were they going to "enjoy the full extent of the facilities" in Georgia and South Carolina from the other side of the Mississippi River?

Let's repeat that: forced march. Men, women, children, and little food or rest involved. One can't really even excuse that part by saying that trains and trucks weren't around yet, because horses and wagons certainly were, so even if one wants to be enough of an asshole to defend the ethnic cleansing carried out for the sake of aggressive expansionism (oh, sorry, "Manifest Destiny"), one is still left with the fact that Washington could have made the process less cruel and didn't care enough to try. One might also ask just how much enjoyment of "facilities" was to be had by those who died of starvation on the tiny plots of relative barren, worthless land to which the Natives were confined, or were lost to Hypothermia, while the kind, caring people in Washington did adorable things like ship blankets infested with smallpox to the reservations. In the rest of the world, this would be known as "biological warfare"or "genocide", but in America "respectable folk" think that such directness is impolite, so they use the word

"Oopsie!"

Yeah. Sure. That makes it all better. By the way, I'm fairly sure I know where you live, now and if so, I've been there. Among other things, I am an engineer, and you know, one of the things we get curious about when we travel is the local technology. We've been known to visit factories for fun. Yes, I know, we're weird. I did some of that technotourism (just coined that word) myself, and made the most interesting and surprising discovery. You folks were lagging us technologically by well over half of a century. Looking at the parts listed in your catalogs, the electronics in use, the way in which you generated the electricity you used, I thought I had stepped either into a museum or through a time warp. Vacuum tubes! You guys were still using freaking vacuum tubes! Some mechanical engineers I knew had similar observations to offer. We came to the conclusion that if it were so inclined, given the technological gap and difference in population, the Upper Midwest could probably crush your region militarily in under a week while suffering minimal troop losses. Seriously - even Iraq was ahead of you guys.

As you say, there's nothing wrong with a more technologically advanced society taking the land of a less technologically advanced society by force, because the more advanced society could put it to better use, so may I assume that you'd have no objection to us doing a little ethnic cleansing in Appalachia? I ask because summer has ended here in Chicago, and we could use a little more good weather (to say nothing of the space), so this "murder your weaker neighbors so you can steal their land" theory of yours is starting to sound interesting. Really, it will be a bargain. I promise we won't murder more than 90% of your people - and I'm sure you know how much that kind of promise is worth - and after we level Chattanooga, Louisville, Little Rock, Graceland et al. and force march you barefoot to where ... Green Bay, maybe ... we'll let those of you who haven't succumbed have full day passes to Six Flags! Whoo! Whoo! That will make watching your sisters get raped and your parents and little brothers die in the snow all worthwhile, won't it? So do we have a deal?





In case you haven't figured it out, I was kidding you sick racist sack of shit. We'd never sink to that, but how interesting that you would.

The natives had better.