I fully support removing confederate statues. Those who make the argument that removal of something erected to literally put traitors on a pedestal is the removal of history are willfully lying to themselves.
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.
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.