The more they refer to it out of context, the less I care.

99,999...

Same thing when we're talking about the flaws of Donald Trump and then they bring up Hillary Clinton like I give two flying f**ks about the Clintons

Yeah, but you have to admit, the other parts of Trump are okay.

which parts?

That's a fair example to a point, though they only bring that up in response to being called, well, KKK members.

The face I make when people regurgitate stale irrelevant talking points about what happened to black people 150 years ago for the 100,000th time.

Who's "rotting" on reservations? They're free to join the rest of us on the same land if they want, and many do, with access to luxuries never afforded the tribes murdered and enslaved by other tribes. And if we gave it back to them, would they give it back to the tribe they stole it from, and would that tribe give it back to the tribe they stole it from, etcetera etcetera? I was born here, so I'm a Native American as much as those from the tribes still around today. By the way this is referring to people using it to justify illegal immigration. Most of the native tribes were too busy warring with, scalping, and enslaving each other to have a unified country with a way to keep out unwelcome foreigners and with them new diseases and violence. Those of any color or descent don't benefit from opening themselves to, while to a lesser but too easily preventable extent, well, diseases and violence.

Native Americans were no more or less violent than we, and in North and South America had very organized and educated people. Some were warlike, some were agrarian, some nomadic. Europeans didn't "need" the land, but the mentality was that if someone wasn't "Christian" then it was OK to take it over. It does not do credit to paint the indigenous peoples as more holy or more savage than you or I or any human, but to recognize that injustices were done. I don't understand people who don't want to hear anything bad about what their race did. No one expects anyone to return to that time, or be able to right the injustices. I also think it's false to equate immigration today with the invasion of the Europeans with their superior firepower which subdued the natives of the time.

I don't believe that they were more violent than the colonists in the grand scheme of things. My point is that the white man won not because he was/is More evil, as so many depict it, but because of superior fire power as you say, so on that point we agree. The reason people don't want to hear anything bad about what people with the same skin color as them did is because they've heard it their while lives as something said to endorse collective guilt and push certain political agendas. When I was growing up I was horrified to learn about the atrocities committed against Native Americans and Black people, but as I got older I saw nore and more the same stories rehashed over and over and pushed all the time without end from academia, news media, and entertainment media the point where it goes far beyond simple recognition of the fact that evil was committed. In fact it's used to justify evil in the case of how black people were treated, with the riots taking over cities for days at a time and destroying whole local economies and lifelong earned livelihoods of people had nothing to do with any spoken grievances. Another evil committed by this kind of identity politics was the presidential pardon during the last administration of hundreds of illegal immigrants who had committed violent crimes, and in general huge numbers of crimes leading to the deaths of innocent people are committed by people in the country illegally, including terrorist attacks that have murdered thousands. While you're right that we're not, at least any time in the foreseeable future, vulnerable to anything close to what happened to the indigenous tribes, what is happening is certainly nothing to sneeze at, and my point is that it's nothing That's properly addressed by bringing up past crimes that time travel would be required to fully remedy and like you said, no one wants to do that, but many people want to undermine American sovereignty and exceptionalism in pursuit of that unattainable goal, and end up just making things worse for everybody.

Apologies for the typos. Autocorrect on my phone can be weirdly inconsitent.

It's those John Wayne documentaries...

Bear in mind, firepower was only part of it, otherwise the subduing would have been quicker and more final. Native Americans were still very capable of wiping out the invaders as they had at times. Peace treaties were used to get them to lower their guard, hand over their weapons, them surround them at might and blast away at dawn before they woke. Smallpox infested blankets were given to them. Rivals were paid bounties for slaves and scalps, inciting warfare for profit. Finally, 30 - 60 million bison were killed to starve them into submission. Superior firepower wasn't the key, it was these various forms of treachery.

A major reason for colonization was timber. Needed for growing warring navies, usable sources in Europe were dwindling. The eastern US used to be covered in a forest the size of the Amazon. Most of what we see today is regrowth, grown after the virgin forest was felled.
Many of the colonists were convicts, this being a British penal colony.

surround them at night*

Who's "rotting" on reservations?

You then answered it for yourself...

"They're free to join the rest of us on the same land if they want, and many do, with access to luxuries never afforded the tribes murdered and enslaved by other tribes."

How mighty white of you.
Murder? Sure took them a long time to wipe each other out. Good things the Europeans came to halt it, eh?

Enslaved? Prisoners of war would be used for small scale labor, even replacing their own fallen during battle. In time, many would be fully integrated into the tribe as members.
That's a bit different from treating entire races as chattel.

"And if we gave it back to them, would they give it back to the tribe they stole it from, and would that tribe give it back to the tribe they stole it from, etcetera etcetera?"

So it's ok for yours to cross an ocean to steal an entire hemisphere with two continents, but heaven forbid they had done the same in battles over borders, as opposed to invasions born out of greed for depleted resources at home?

'I was born here, so I'm a Native American as much as those from the tribes still around today."

No, you are not.
The peoples you are disparaging here are.

"By the way this is referring to people using it to justify illegal immigration."

Meme, title, and tags do not state so.

"Most of the native tribes were too busy warring with, scalping, and enslaving each other to have a unified country with a way to keep out unwelcome foreigners and with them new diseases and violence."

Again, you justify European aggression and warfare by accusing those they visited such upon as being the ones guilty of it.

English and French offered bounties for scalps against each other during their wars in America and the Native population. The practice was utilized as a means of exterminating Natives. Their scalps were referred to as "red skins" - hence why the term is so offensive.

There were unified countries, from the Missippi Mound Culture to the Mexica to the Incas and so on. In fact, the USA and Constitution are modeled after the Iroquis Confederacy and its Great Law of Peace.

For the most part, these warring scalping savages - as you potray them - welcomed visitors. This provided Europeans a means to sneak in ostensibly with peaceful intentions, make treaties, then turn & massacre & steal.

"Those of any color or descent don't benefit from opening themselves to, while to a lesser but too easily preventable extent, well, diseases and violence."

What?

English and French offered bounties for scalps of* each other during their wars in America and of* the Native population.

"You then answered it for yourself..."

Most Native Americans don't even love on reservations. Yes, I did answer it. The answer is no one who doesn't live there by choice. Also it does no service to act like every single reservation is like some prison or something. They govern themselves and again are free to join the rest of us if they choose, which again, most of them have done because it benefits them.

"How mighty white of you."

[Deep breath.] *Sigh....

My friend, That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. If you expect racism, whether external or self-inflicted, whatever your color is, to get people to agree with you, don't ever expect any success. The more you talk like that, the less people care, as I hinted in my title. Just some advice, man.

My comments on savagery were a tongue in cheek response to the common sentiment that every single tribe was a group of tree-hugging pacifists. I'm well aware that plenty of them were decent people, and already mentioned that I don't think they were more violent than the colonists in the grand scheme of things word for word. My point was that neither were the colonists all warmongering maniacs, and responded to plenty of slaughter of unarmed women and children themselves, and that the Native Americans lost not because the white man is some evil plague on the planet but because he was more unified and had better technology.

"Meme, title, and tags do not state so."

That's the most common usage lately of those talking points.

Yes, I am. If 150-200 years and multiple generations born and dead on the land isn't a statute of limitations for you, we'll have to agree to disagree.

"Again, you justify European aggression and warfare by accusing those they visited such upon as being the ones guilty of it."

I have done nothing at all to justify the greed and atrocities committed by the settlers. I've made clear already what my point was there.

"Those of any color or descent don't benefit from opening themselves to, while to a lesser but too easily preventable extent, well, diseases and violence."

Is responding to the notion that we should have open borders, enabling crimes in the present because of crimes of the past, the "two wrongs make a right" mentality. I elaborated on it further to CCBit, who by the I'd recommend taking a hint from on how to make your case, man. I mean that as genuine advice.

^ tl;dr

Skimming through I see a whole lotta deflection, back peddling, and additional lumps of your ignorant bullshit.

150 - 200 years? You seem to think America materialized out of thin air (242 years ago, actually) and this all started & ended then.

Read a book, or, you know, Google.

I'm basically done here.

Curious, how ALL you alt right bots claim to be Democrats who voted for Obama THEN the recession hit and your vast investment portofolio tumbled and your medical insurance went up and....
Like with your, "I used to feel bad for em, but it got played out, so now it's not true" posturing. What happened, happened, regardless of your empathy switched getting turned on then off. You never care, that's just bogus posturing. Be honest, you'll find your lies work better that way.

Later.

I saw before reading this this response that I originally missed your first comment, which adversely affected my response, though it's extra ironic that while you had so many responses that so missed one at first you respond with "tldr" to a response half the length of yours, a true sign of someone really interested in the truth...

Them you accuse me of deflection and backpedaling, presumably for saying "plenty" as if that is in stark contradiction to "most" when with a large group the ones on the outside can surely still be "plenty." Then you characterize everything I'm saying as "ignorant bullshit" which I'm curious how you would know without reading it, then spit yet another obvious straw man. I was referring to the rough cut off point for when the face of America was permanently changed, though thank you for further enforcing my point that people of European decent have actually owned much of the land for far longer.

Then you make wild, grasping for straw assumptions about my political affiliation and bizarre claims about me having ever said I voted for Obama. (You said "ALL.") By the way it's hilarious for you to call me alt right.

Then you go to the typical collectivist tactic of completely ignoring the point and just accusing the person who disagrees with you of evil apathy and of somehow not even acknowledging what happened on the past just because we're sick of people digging up and beating dead horses.

But yeah, thank you for your contribution, and good riddance.

So you claim the facts I stated are incorrect except for that which supported your John Wayne mythology.

Its overdependence on deliberately hypocritical ignorance makes alt reichgters such a wonderful joy.

Hope I didn't stub your goose stepping toes too hard.

The problems that do exist with reservations are in context of what's happening today, so people can and should talk about them, as opposed to using past crimes to downplay or justify present crimes.

As if somehow it excuses what has been done. SMH.....

Where did I say that excuses it?

I did not say you said that, I am saying this is another frustration along the same lines. You know, joining in your complaint?

Alright, honestly I'm just confused by the wording. Wait, are you saying they they think they can fix the past just by continuously bringing it up?

Is that what you mean by "As if that excuses what's been done?"

For example. Say political figure A falls under scrutiny for lying, stealing, or some similar dirty deed. And someone posts a meme saying what a crooked politician this Political figure A is. They come in and start naming off things some other opposing politician has done as if somehow naming the oppositions misdeeds somehow excuses political figure A from what they have done, or somehow makes it less of a crime.