Pekka Hemalainan is pretty much the only historian who studies native tribes during the European colonization. His recent book talks about how the tribes didn't view Europeans as much of a challenge or difficulty. The loss of land came from their own arrogance than anything to do with the idea of European dominance.
Basically, European colonies survived by going to places the other tribes didn't consider important. Another tribe had died off, and the Europeans settled in that land? Sure go ahead.
This follows similar ideas in business tech called Disruption. Nintendo has specifically tried to emulate the ideas from books based on those studies. They let Sony and Microsoft battle for the same players, and then offer it to everyone else, with a few games those other players might enjoy as well.
I bring this up because the same ideas are being used to promote the 'great replacement'. The POC are not that important, but they should be given all this power because they aren't a threat.
I agree. My apologies, I had a headache.
From the point of view of the WEF type folks, people of color are a means to gain more power for themselves. The Comanche had similar thoughts for Europeans. To the tribal nation, Europeans had guns and steel that could be taken or traded for. The Spanish had forts, but didn't really own the land because the commanche easily swept in and got what they wanted. These forts paid taxes or were destroyed.
The same can be said about how the various governments view immigration. To them, this is a powerless people that will just as soon riot in their own part of town, and be powerless outside it. This is an easily controlled group that can move into the enemy's camp and replace them. At no point do you see the realization that these new immigrants have no loyalties to them or desire to follow once they are in power.
Ah. Definitely agree.