Trying to argue this point just legitimizes this argument as one worth having, which in turn is just playing the Lefties' game by entering an arena they will configure to always be on the debate winning side.
It doesn't matter what they believe or did. 90% of them died by the germ apocalypse, leaving nothing of their people due to basically an act of god and most of them likely wouldn't have bounced back without the horses/guns/trading the white men were supplying to them.
There's a debate between Andrew Wilson and some lady named Charlie. And she says tribes crossing from Asia to empty land isn't colonialism because they are leaving everything behind to move to unoccupied land. I wonder if she would consider Boers colonizers? By definition they left the Netherlands behind and moved into unoccupied land. She didn’t address it but I'll guess she would because they are white.
Leftist are just White Man Burdeners without the ambition to actually improve anything.
Multiple sites in The Americas are far older than the Clovis people, by thousands of years.
There's also no Clovis record in the gap between glaciers, and it was utterly barren for hundreds of years. Devoid of plants and animals, no way primitive people went through there until long after it opened up.
They came to The Americas by sea, both Atlantic and Pacific. Hugging the shoreline even when glaciers were still around. All that ancient shoreline is under 200 feet of water now though, almost impossible to find anything.
As a descendant of colonials who were fined for loaning weapons to indians for the purpose of hunting. I dont think thats a accurate statement to say. There would have been nothing to bounce back from if we hadnt decided we wanted their shit.
You can call white people an act of god, but when the literal catholic church is behind alot of this bullshit, and it wasnt just the english purposely infecting tribes, there was the spanish and french too. The church may actually be some of the most evil shit ive ever had the displeasure of knowing existed. All the while shielding their acts behind "its gods plan" bullshit.
And honestly the guy who made this youtube video doesnt know what hes talking about either. Like one of those youtube comments pointed out, they had their own systems, but they certainly werent as litigious or literally based around bullshit.
Have you guys ever had to try and use the justice system? There is a reason you need lawyers, they invented an entire bible of rules and language so that the common person has no idea what to do.
Versus the native americans who believed in a universal set of rights. Just because some tribes had different beliefs doesnt invalidate that. Even chatgpt agrees.
What is “natural rights” as defined by Europeans? A philosophical idea that certain rights (life, liberty, property) are inherent to all humans and independent of any government or social contract. It was formulated within a specific historical context: the Enlightenment, mercantilism, colonial expansion. When we talk about natural rights, we are invoking a particular metaphysical framework that may not map neatly onto other cultures’ ontologies.
How did Indigenous concepts differ? Many Indigenous societies viewed rights in relational terms—between people, between humans and the land, between living beings and spirits. Rights were often contingent on responsibilities: you could claim stewardship of a river only if you honored its spirit and ensured its health for future generations. This relational ethics can be seen as an alternative to the individual‑centric natural rights model.
Did European colonists misinterpret or dismiss Indigenous morality? Frequently, yes. Colonizers often labeled Indigenous legal systems as “primitive” or “unlawful,” justifying conquest and forced assimilation. The doctrine of terra nullius (land belonging to no one) ignored the complex land‑ownership practices that existed in many societies. Misunderstanding has had lasting consequences: displacement, loss of cultural knowledge, and ongoing legal disputes over land rights.
It would be wrong to say that Native American societies lacked “natural rights” or “universal ethics.” They had rich moral systems rooted in relationality, stewardship, reciprocity, and community. The difference lies mainly in how those ethics were conceptualized—often as part of a broader cosmology rather than an abstract principle of individual entitlement.
Like you cant convince me our society would not be a better place if you had to do a spirit quest before becoming president or whatever. And sure you may think this is dumb.
But starving yourself for a week, eating some peyote and stumbling into the deep of the woods, I would imagine would be a humbling and spiritual enlightenment for anyone. Just the risk of dying, thats all. But its being so close to death with the mind altering substance that can reveal a glimpse behind the curtain, I imagine anyway.
Like you cant convince me our society would not be a better place if you had to do a spirit quest before becoming president or whatever.
Trials of manhood have historically usually existed in tribal societies and then were left behind as they advanced. This is across continents and people independent of each other. Clearly there is a reason why that continues to happen, regardless on if we think its a good idea conceptually.
I don't particularly care for trying to justify what was done to them through these arguments, its why I said we shouldn't do so whatsoever. Their systems worked until they didn't, and its only because of White Man's capacity for mercy and empathy that we even give a shit about their existence beyond a footnote.
Because most other times in history the new technologically superior people just conquered and killed/enslaved the natives down to nothing without a single care. It was only Colonialism that changed that fact to let these people live whatsoever.
Trying to argue this point just legitimizes this argument as one worth having, which in turn is just playing the Lefties' game by entering an arena they will configure to always be on the debate winning side.
It doesn't matter what they believe or did. 90% of them died by the germ apocalypse, leaving nothing of their people due to basically an act of god and most of them likely wouldn't have bounced back without the horses/guns/trading the white men were supplying to them.
There's a debate between Andrew Wilson and some lady named Charlie. And she says tribes crossing from Asia to empty land isn't colonialism because they are leaving everything behind to move to unoccupied land. I wonder if she would consider Boers colonizers? By definition they left the Netherlands behind and moved into unoccupied land. She didn’t address it but I'll guess she would because they are white.
Leftist are just White Man Burdeners without the ambition to actually improve anything.
there's some scant evidence that there were people here before the land bridge crossings even
Multiple sites in The Americas are far older than the Clovis people, by thousands of years.
There's also no Clovis record in the gap between glaciers, and it was utterly barren for hundreds of years. Devoid of plants and animals, no way primitive people went through there until long after it opened up.
They came to The Americas by sea, both Atlantic and Pacific. Hugging the shoreline even when glaciers were still around. All that ancient shoreline is under 200 feet of water now though, almost impossible to find anything.
As a descendant of colonials who were fined for loaning weapons to indians for the purpose of hunting. I dont think thats a accurate statement to say. There would have been nothing to bounce back from if we hadnt decided we wanted their shit.
You can call white people an act of god, but when the literal catholic church is behind alot of this bullshit, and it wasnt just the english purposely infecting tribes, there was the spanish and french too. The church may actually be some of the most evil shit ive ever had the displeasure of knowing existed. All the while shielding their acts behind "its gods plan" bullshit.
And honestly the guy who made this youtube video doesnt know what hes talking about either. Like one of those youtube comments pointed out, they had their own systems, but they certainly werent as litigious or literally based around bullshit.
Have you guys ever had to try and use the justice system? There is a reason you need lawyers, they invented an entire bible of rules and language so that the common person has no idea what to do.
Versus the native americans who believed in a universal set of rights. Just because some tribes had different beliefs doesnt invalidate that. Even chatgpt agrees.
Like you cant convince me our society would not be a better place if you had to do a spirit quest before becoming president or whatever. And sure you may think this is dumb.
But starving yourself for a week, eating some peyote and stumbling into the deep of the woods, I would imagine would be a humbling and spiritual enlightenment for anyone. Just the risk of dying, thats all. But its being so close to death with the mind altering substance that can reveal a glimpse behind the curtain, I imagine anyway.
You are such a faggot.
Trials of manhood have historically usually existed in tribal societies and then were left behind as they advanced. This is across continents and people independent of each other. Clearly there is a reason why that continues to happen, regardless on if we think its a good idea conceptually.
I don't particularly care for trying to justify what was done to them through these arguments, its why I said we shouldn't do so whatsoever. Their systems worked until they didn't, and its only because of White Man's capacity for mercy and empathy that we even give a shit about their existence beyond a footnote.
Because most other times in history the new technologically superior people just conquered and killed/enslaved the natives down to nothing without a single care. It was only Colonialism that changed that fact to let these people live whatsoever.
Indians (feather, not dot) are a great example of what unchecked immigration leads to.