The Conundrum! Objective. Perspective. Subjective. If you hate CC, you hate immigration and diversity.

Anthropologically speaking, since homo sapiens weren't native to this continent (Pangaea, the Bering Straight land bridge, etc.), the land belongs to the bison (or whichever fauna). All humans are immigrants to the Americas. But I'm sure someone argue against the science to support a specific political agenda.

Seems legit

we conquered the land, we built the house.

The Iroquois had alot of houses. So did the Sioux. The Incas were nearly as technologically advanced as Europe, with comparable architecture and other art. But they lost the war, just like half of Europe lost the war against Rome. They also got their independence back, just like half of Europe did from Rome.

See the difference?

Why are you dwelling on dwellings?

You are the one who said the house was stolen :P

"House" fit the meme better than "land" and I didn't think anyone would bother debating housing in post-genocide context

I'm not sure who you are trying to fool by comparing a state of the art building from over 300 years ago to a state of the art city from the modern age.

State of the art? LMFAO

about 300 years and a lot more people and civilizations to contribute technologies

1776 vs 1492?
Eh, an improvement over your 2018 pic.

Where is that trailer park located, btw? In the Appalachians, or is that Arkansas?

I won't lie, I'm surprised you recognize the picture.
Would it have been more honest to show pictures of colonies newly under construction with their little wooden palisades they built to try to survive against native attacks to compare to Iroquois villages that had been in place for centuries? The Iroquois confederacy had been around since nearly the time of the first crusade. But please, ignore the historical context some more.

Oh, ok, those fell outside of the map of the USA back then which did not exist and what are you even getting at again?

The Incas had no wheel because they had no draft animals to yoke them to. Llamas just don't make the cut.

Plus despite having a more extensive (in terms of miles) road system than Rome, the Andes didn't exactly optimize level roadway construction for the Incas.

Babylon, is that in Europe? Oh, that's right, Western Civilization emerged slightly East. Thank goodness for the relative proximity, it only took how long for Bronze Age tech to finally be imported there? And then how much longer to make it north of the Pyranees?

This is boring, and again, you are correct, 500 years ago Iroquois did not live in modern skyscrapers.

Nor did anyone else.

Night.

Nor did they live in cities like the one you so kindly dated at 1776.

Very nice way to change the course of the argument from "longhouses aren't state of the art" to "western civilization came from the east". Was that intentional or were you just too ragey to understand what you were arguing about?

Night.

You mean like Roanoke?

Surely you don't mean the Mississippi mound culture, or Mexica or Inca?

You have a bad habit of arguing with those vouching for what you said.
Let me simplify it for you:

Yes, that's a drawing of a hut.

Yes, that's a pic of a modern city.

Yes, no kidding.

Since I can't reply to OhWell: the whole point of the debate is CC immigrating. He didn't land anywhere close to the current USA. Incas were Pre-Babylonian in technology? They only built a city on top of a lake.

it hurt when i pee

Last I checked Mexica and the Inca weren't based inside US borders, you might want to retake elementary geography. Or elementary history. As far as the mound people.. lol. The Mississippian mound people were long gone before even the Spaniards were exploring North America. I might as well be comparing longhouses to the Parthenon. And the Inca? They hadn't even invented the wheel. An impressive administrative empire, sure.. but pre-Babylonian in technology.

Actually nobody got their independence back from Rome. After Rome fell germanics conquered all the land they had held previously. In addition, the Roman's had so thoroughly latinized their subjects the idea that those living in France were still gauls in 400ad is laughable. Their customs had utterly changed. Your entire post is based out of profound ignorance for history

No. No they were not technologically advanced at all. Point: who navigated across the ocean for months on end and still came out of that journey alive? You can't do that without an extreme mastery of navigation, boatcraft, logistics...... etc.

Art == technology.

You are so clamoring for European exceptionalism that you ignore the complex and more accurate time keeping methods developed by the Mayans as well as their accurate understanding of cosmology, their construction methods, as well as the more extensive and more effective infrastructure than anything developed anywhere else in the world up to that point.

A caveman that's really good at looking at the stars is still just a caveman.

I'm really confused how you can claim people with more extensive and more effective infrastructure and architecture than anything developed anywhere else in the world up to that point were cave men.

The only thing he discovered is that he didn't land in India. After making that discovery, he was the leader of the first wave of several conquering armies.

He was an explorer. The correct term for people that later settled in America is.. SETTLERS. They created a country from the ground up. They did not simply "immigrate" to an existing country.

Something something about population density, a certain threshold of mastery of science and agriculture, the ability to actually defend your borders, and... perhaps having the concept of "immigration" in the first place.

Sure you can say they had a "rich culture" but bottom line is that they were savages that practiced human sacrifice, among other things.

Epytians and Babylonions practiced human sacrifice, among other things. Mayans and Incans had a greater mastery of science and agriculture than any other civilization at the time. Ability to defend your borders? I guess there was no nation of France for most of European history, including today since they still lack an effective means of defending their borders.

And you don't have point.

Since you seem to have missed the point. imgflip.com/i/2l4ccr

Perspective: Christopher Columbus was a brutal leader who cut off peoples limbs if they didn't bring him enough gold.

Agreed. God bless him.

Response: Christopher Columbus was an explorer who brought devastation upon a once-mighty civilization.

Granted, the lack of diversity was a weakness for Native Americans (fewer immunities led to quite a few plagues throughout their history that would periodically and tragically cull the population), but illness was not all that CC brought - they were also brutally violent towards the indigenous peoples of the Americas. He and the European explorers and settlers who came after him viewed themselves as conquerors of the land, not immigrants to it.

VERY big difference.

So, one could surmise from you reply, that not all immigration is good? Thanks for the perspective. You gave me a new idea for a meme.

Columbus was not an immigrant. Neither were the Pilgrims, or the settlers at Jamestown. They came here to settle a wild land, not to coexist in an already settled land. When they encountered an established people already present, it didn't take long for them to attempt to conquer them, because again, they did not come here to immigrate to a different civilization. They came to create a new civilization where there was none. There is no situation in the modern world that compares.

Bing Search:

Who were the Pilgrims?

Both the Pilgrims and the Puritans were English Protestants who believed that the Church of England was in need of reform. Although both were strict Calvinists, they differed in approaches to reforming the Church of England. The Pilgrims were more inclined to separate from the church, while the Puritans wanted to reform the church from within.

Still not immigrants to an existing civilization - they did not intend to join the people here. Settlers and immigrants are two different things.

There is no equivalence between them and anyone currently trying to emigrate to the US.

Neither do the Honduran flag waving caravans.
>checkmate NPC

Really? All it takes is displaying your country of origin's flag to constitute disloyalty? There are a few million Irish Americans who may disagree with you there.

Do I need to repost my original meme on the subject or do you admit there were multiple civilizations already here?

The fact that there were people here already does not mean he was an immigrant. Why is it so difficult for you to see the difference between an immigrant and a settler? Though in Columbus' case, he never intended to stay, so I suppose he was neither - he was a pillager at best.

The reason he even set out to find a trade route to India was because of the fall of Constantinople by the Muslims, that's what closed the old trade route. So, I guess you could say, plundering begat plundering.

Erm. Not quite. The land route to Asia was dangerous and inefficient in comparison to sea travel. Regardless of who controlled Turkey, a search for a sea route was inevitable.

Also: are you blaming what Columbus and other explorers did to indigenous people on Muslims? Because that makes no sense. That's like blaming the US for the Holocaust because they were on the winning side of World War I.

Of course they would have went in search of new discoveries, eventually. They went out of necessity and desperation, they were cutoff.

Yes because they were so desperate <eyes rolling> They went out of greed, either their own or that of their benefactors.

Virtually all discoveries were out of greed. Even the life saving ones.

Exactly how is this a valid argument for genocide?

So, the people that fled the religious persecution of the English crown, came here with conquest on their minds? Muh, narrative...

muh, 150 year time jump and different country's colonies