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.