Injuns

>By any chance were the Reservations something YOU guys came up with, or the settlers?
Federal Government.
The Tribes did fine whenever it was just settlers to handle. My own tribe still survives because we were never overrun like some others were.

What right does anybody have to any land? Nobody was spawned from the dirt they're standing in. Does the land belong to the Amerindians because they were there first? Is that all it takes, the first joker to step foot there owns it forever? Their descendants? The natives were killing and conquering each other long before we got here. None of the "original" natives were displaced by Europeans.
The only claim anyone has on a patch of land is the ability to make others recognize that claim, whether through force, persuasion, or otherwise. There's literally no other definition that is consistent. The Europeans wanted this land, and the Amerindians couldn't/wouldn't/didn't stop them. It's happened a thousand times in a thousand places.

Attached: 1daaeff443535758a97847c23e236c6b.jpg (960x1280, 183K)

The argument that they shouldn't be driven from their homes? Yes, the same argument worked in favor of the Palestinians but nobody had the balls to enforce basic humanity. No more Nakbas

A controversial perspective, in my opinion, but thanks for sharing it. It makes me think (yes, unironically.)

Also thanks for the native voices here. I read them all, and didn't think I'd catch any of you guys today.

the various indian nations spent centuries waging war with each other, making peace, conquering territory, losing territory. europeans came over and proceeded to do much the same, with the advantage provided by multiple plagues that severely weakened the injuns

diseases absolutely crushed their numbers, and they couldnt rebuild nearly as fast as the europeans were baby booming with their agriculture, and because of racial tensions the american settlers were about to genocide the indians before the government stepped in and forced them all out west to indian territory

american territory was forged via migration and war, just as every other nation (indian, european, or otherwise) was before it. some of the american territory was purchased from indians, some was given via alliances, and a lot was also taken. some territory was basically abandoned by one tribe or another as they migrated out. we acquired it basically the same way a specific tribe acquired it from the previous owners

and if you learn nothing else about the history of the injuns, learn this: mass migration is ruinous for the host nation

Attached: 1546115049401.jpg (1296x1296, 718K)

Didn't know that about the Palestinians if it be true. A complicated issue, then.

Not an injun myself, but I live in an injun-heavy area in Northern Wisconsin. The reservations up here are really shit land for farming and other agricultural purposes. It's like this from here to North Dakota in most reservations that I've seen. No person in their right mind would think to place themselves there. However, they have unreal fishing and hunting rights. Natives are pretty much allowed to keep almost everything they catch/kill.

Savages, think about it white people had ships, guns, cannons etc. meanwhile Indians only stone tools

Attached: DF024DC8-A234-4FE9-9BD2-7BD0715EBF0D.jpg (683x1024, 115K)

They're not one unified people. An Iroquois is not entitled to the land of a Navajo just because they're both red. Natives constantly moved and settled new places and displaced other people.

Your demand for a "moral" explanation just shows that your idea of morality is fundamentally different from pretty much all of human history, which considered conquest and settle not only moral but just as well. If anything, YOU should be explaining why it's morally wrong

Attached: 1486598514689.jpg (940x788, 217K)

It's shit land for farming because they're shit farmers. Same thing in South Africa about the whining over whites having all the "good land," whites are the ones that made it good

It's pretty overplayed as a "conquest," in terms of North America, in terms of scale. The bigger, more advanced Indians in the North were already dead/defeated by disease by the time the Anglo got there. You can make a similar argument for more nomadic ones The Spanish/Portuguese lived up more to the Imperialistic legacy than the Anglos.
The white Anglo settlers, more often than not, were encountering a people that were already exposed to Europeans.
Some misconceptions:
1. The "Noble Savage." Natives, as a whole, were not aghast of technology. In fact, they sometimes were better armed than Whitey, like at the Battle of Little Bighorn, where they had some privately own repeating rifles, which far outclassed what the Army was using.
2. "Conquest." The native were in no way organized in a matter equivalent to a Sovereignty. Their population, in North America during English incursion, was too sparse for the kind of diplomatic intrigue a place like China or India could give a colonial power. Anthropologically, their organization revolved around small groups of people.
3. "Uniformity." The Indians are a very loose group of people. They're not one people with different tribes, even. Their cultural diversity, I think, is a bit closer (though not equivocal) to the Germanic-Celtic-Slavic range during the Roman Empire than it would be to just the kind of range Germans, Slavs, or Celts as a people alone would produce.

Well user you dont really get to say "no right of conquest"
Because that is exactly the reason why. Unless they take up arms and rise against us, the conquered have little to say in the land of their conquerors.

Attached: ecaf29b1dccd7f791c341d72e10f2825d83edac6v2_hq.jpg (900x640, 91K)

I’ve lived and worked on the Navajo, Hopi, Tewa, and Zuni areas of the southwestern United States and have done business with them as part of my job as an outdoor guide and logistics manager. They are all tough little obese desert goblins who command a varying degree of success in the modern world, and they all fucking hate each other.

Navajo: highly industrious in comparison to other tribes (partly due to their massive population), economically oriented and by far the most unified and successful group of clans when it comes to integrating with the western world. The most “Americanized” out of any tribes I’ve interacted with. They’re good at adapting to change and basically spent the past 800 years stealing everyone else’s cattle and retreating into the canyon systems. Formidable people who murdered a fuckload of Spaniards. Currently diabetic obesity, alcoholism, and opiates are their biggest problems.

Hopi: Burning dumpsterfire of a tribe. Things were better for them back in the 60’s/70’s because back then their elders understood that integration with the outside world meant good healthcare and education. New leadership of boomer aged “chiefs” are basically a bunch of fundamentalist retards who cut their people off from the rest of the world, leading to all the problems the Navajo are dealing with, only 1,000 times worse and with zero industry. Go to Third Mesa in Pollaca AZ and you’ll see what I’m talking about. No education, healthcare or industry. Worse than Somalia.

Tewa: migrated from New Mexico to Arizona to join forces/cultures with the Hopi 500 years ago because that was the only way both tribes could survive the Navajo raping and pillaging everything. Currently still in the same shitpot as their Hopi buddies.

Zuni: Japan-tier cultural exporters who have used their exotic art and history to generate a small but relatively wealthy society. The Switzerland of American Natives.

Any more questions?

Attached: 11F06E30-E65E-48EC-8710-2D31F9B841AE.jpg (490x732, 75K)

Based Chief Beareagle.

In Alaska we don’t have reservations, except for 1 extremely small town. They just live around like anyone else.

Yeah because they couldn't progress due to animal extinction. They had no animals that could move carts around so they didn't do huge civilizations like we did.

Just remember even the Pauite admit to killing the older red haired Si teh Cah tribe and stole the land.
Injuns were not first and they were never native. They came from Siberia after the YD, crossing to another continent does not magically create a new race of humans.
The Solutreans were FIRST and Europoids have an ancient ancestral right to this continent.

we literally bought it and made contracts to have those lands in which they violently fought against us on land they stole from indo-europeans after they mass slaughtered them.

Attached: 1534994748099.jpg (1024x887, 118K)

1/3 Praire Nigger here. It might be different in the US, but First Nations are the most pozzed of any ethnic group. They don't hate niggers and definitely not each other.

Attached: c825738875b9ea4fe63c506e75c7cc88.jpg (645x773, 62K)

false. Alaskan Siber Natives got 44 million acres of sovereign land and own the wealthiest corporations in Alaska. They get shareholder money, free healthcare. free school and also get PFD money.
No they get treated much better than everyone else in AK.

Attached: ancsa 40 years.jpg (199x254, 12K)

whitey made them so injuns would't be violent and could preserve their people, but we see how that went.

your land is only yours by right of conquest.

otherwise, land is owned by people already dead, we all are invaders of cave men

The Solutreans were the First Nations not the Turtle Island cultists from Siberia.
This is basic math.

Attached: Screenshot (33).png (699x591, 687K)

Despite what some of the posters might say, Natives have a blodd claim to these lands. Just like Europeans have a blood claim to Europe, etc.
This thread is filled with a bunch of edgelords who dont believe half of what they spew, and I doubt any would say that once (they) take over and destroy Europe that it will be moral because of some arbritrary notion of "right by conquest."

What does this reply have to do with reservations you retard. Metlakatla is the only reservation.

blood claims our by right of conquest, you shed blood for the land.

You didn't reapond to the later half of my post. How can the groups that you promote as being immoral for conquering land be immoral if you dont hold yourself to the same standard?

Your post has 108 elements of truth.

Alaska is corporate sovereignty and they rape resources on sovereign lands like Red Dog mine or Sea Alaska or the umpteen other nature abusing Injun Corporations. Its the same thing as a reservation, thats why the EPA cant stop Red Dog from spilling lead in the air.
Alaska is the worst idea ever put in action.

Europeans have an ancient blood claim to North America since they were the First Nations and hunted the great mammoth long before these siberInjuns ever arrived.
Europeans have an ancient inalienable tribal heritage to this continent.
If Injuns want to call it Turtle Island then whites need to keep calling it by its true name.
Atlantis, home of the Copper Culture, Seafarers and moundbuilders.

Attached: spirit dude.jpg (850x574, 42K)

It is unethical to take what is not yours, but that does not stop anyone. The colonies formed alliances with natives against the British and their native allies. Many territorial disputes remain unsettled and treaty rights are limited or poorly enforced. Depending on the details of the agreement Native's are entitled to surface rights, mineral rights, etc. There's usually some restriction on what and where they hunt and fish. When companies go to stake a claim their obliged to reach an agreement with the locals. Most reserves are poorly serviced, deal with addiction and mental health issues and most of the younger generation is leaving.

All things considered it is worst to be 'native' in most other parts of the world.

>down until Northern Mexico, after that you get those weird ass little Indios
kek
Chief of truth

The thing, the Native Americans weren’t very large in numbers. There were different tribes that would fight wars and force one another into different lands. When Europeans arrived, instead of being united as “Natives”, they traded with Europeans and asked for their help in waging wars against other tribes. The tribes were always so small in numbers and hunter gatherers.

Eventually the Natives would be pushed back West. The High Plains (Montana, South Dakota West, Wyoming, Nebraska) had the largest tribes and were hostile when the Europeans began settling the High Plains. The U.S government gave them the “Great Sioux Reservation”, which was all of South Dakota, west of the Missouri River. This was based off the Sioux-tribes which were very large and hostile compared to the Native Americans found on the East coast when Europeans arrived(much different people).,.Well, when the Black Hills was discovered to have gold..miners and settlers started to enter and live in the Great Sioux Territory. The Sioux tribes had no way of defending their reservation borders. When they appealed to the U.S government for help and removal of the white settlers, the government refused and sent in the U.S Army in the 1870s-1880s(can’t remember the exact years). Led by General Custer, a highly decorated civil war veteran, the U.S army marched through the territory in South Dakota and drove the Natives off the reservation. The Natives were then told to report to “agency’s” for negotations and relocation. The Sioux and the Northern Cheyenne refused, and began camping together unitedly in Eastern Montana off the Big Horn River. When Custer’s Calvary attempted to encircle them and force surrender, he mistakenly found the biggest Indian camp the U.S military had ever seen. His entire calvary was wiped out in arguably the worst defeat(embarrassing) in U.S military history. Custer himself was killed, a man who had aspirations, after having defeated the Sioux.

Attached: 5D7DBF78-23C4-401A-A9EC-24DD61521130.png (350x350, 168K)

from a rothbardian standpoint, we probably did steal the land of the settled indians

with an emphasis on "settled", the nomadic ones can get rekt

The Pauite admit to killing the older red haired Saiduka and stole the land.
They admit it, and Lovelock/Spirit cave had Ancient Europoid mummies to back it up.
It wasn't TeePees and Injuns until after the YD.

Attached: spirit mummy.jpg (1200x630, 112K)

They were easily conquered and defeated. They chose survival over annihilation by surrendering. They are are more than welcome to try and restart the battle.

(continued) The Plains Indians were the last to surrender, but surrender was their only option if they didn’t want to be genocided completely. Many different tribes mentioned that the Black Hills was their sacred and spiritual land, and that you could take everything from them except the Black Hills. The Black Hills is a small isolated mountain rage and somewhat of an oasis in the High Plains region in that is surrounded by desert and barren plains. The U.S government refused. The U.S broke away from their original decision and the Great Sioux Territory was desolved and the tribes were separated into smaller, more isolated locations. Thus, they actually did “steal” the Black Hills and land from the Sioux. Questions, although the answers may not matter anymore, still remain.

For Europeans, was the Great Sioux War or the final blow to the Native American sovereignty and culture worth it? It’s not like Western South Dakota is highly populated or valuable land. The Black Hills was sought by settlers because of the prospect of gold. The history of the U.S wouldn’t be much different, Black Hills or not.

And for the Natives, what would have become of a large Native territory, basically a different nation within the U.S, had the Great Sioux Reservation remained. Would it have prospered and their population grow and flourish? Would it become hostile to its neighbor territories? I don’t know. But it was the final blow to them.

Pic is the “land” they received from the feds. Unfarmable Rock with no trees...

Attached: C4EB1A0C-19F3-471F-A486-E441C3E0446C.jpg (991x733, 122K)

*Aspirations to become president

Bison fag

Injuns can always go home to Siberia and see how many gibbs Russia gives them.
Innuns have many millions of acres of land, and many corporations that get no bid federal contracts, and huge mines.
In fact there is no wall being built since Injuns are getting too fat smuggling drugs and illegals into the USA even today.
Shape up or go home to Siberia.

Attached: Screenshot (785).png (1366x768, 604K)

This coming from an Aussie.

Ask the fucking Abo's. They'll tell you.

>be asian nomadic tribe
>exiled from Siberia/China
>forced to cross ice bridge by rival tribes
>turns out there’s land beyond the ice
>America
>you settle there
>bridge melts
>”hurrrrr we’re natives, everyone who comes here after us isn’t”

picture of a siberian girl, they came from siberia, plus they look more siberian than european, no traces of any european thing was never founded...

geocurrents.info/place/russia-ukraine-and-caucasus/siberia/siberian-genetics-native-americans-and-the-altai-connection

Attached: 0013-alexander-khimushin-siberia[1].jpg (750x1125, 275K)

White people (Vikings) got here first.

bullshit.
the oldest human remains found here are European, I even posted a pic from spirit Cave man.
Lots of european skulls, tools and art have been found, and the oldest sites are not in fucking Alaska or Canada, they are on the east coast.
ALL the oldest sites are on the EAST coast.

Attached: StanfordClovisPoints2.jpg (1600x1062, 259K)

The Vikings and Phoenicians were from here actually.
North America was the legendary atlantis.

Attached: OCC.jpg (503x644, 57K)

>whites took native land
Have you ever asked WHY whites cane here?
Those that don’t know, prepare to be redpilled
>Muslims
That’s right.
Why would Columbus risk the journey across an unknown ocean just to get to India which was easily traversed via the Silk Road?
>Muslims
They were a scourge then, same as now.
So the next time some Indian loving hippie starts in on Muh Genocide, set them straight on the historical facts.
Whites came to America because of Muslims.

Attached: Michigan Copper ship.jpg (321x157, 17K)

>The tribes hate each other, but will pretend to like each other to fuck whitey.
honestly made me laugh

so basically the argument of all the people born from illegal immigrants

people who bitch about whites taking the land from the indians are the samefags who are against the wall.

faggots dont kno that if the natives had a strong immigration policy they could have kept the whites out but the natives were retarded like liberals who dont want the wall

They had terrible population density and tech and were waiting for an advanced civ to move in. The West, the most advanced civ in the world, colonized first and developed the continent.
The native americans could have fought back more. Some tribes did fight ferociously. But they had no chance against our better tech and population. It is a lesson that you need strength to protect your civilization.
(And before you feel bad for the savages, remember that they were ignorant, violent and warred on themselves nonstop. Some tribes would torture and cannibalize warriors they caught).

Reservations were originally prisoner of war camps.

In the first 100 years after Spanish contact 90% of the native population of North America died of disease. Mostly smallpox and bubonic plague. At that time there was no germ theory of disease and no one could have known what would happen when the natives encountered the old world. And the exact same thing would have happened if the Chinese had landed on the west coast in 1491. The indians were doomed the second they stepped onto the bering land bridge. By the time colonization began the natives were a shadow of their former selves. So what should we have done? Left a huge continent under the control of a fading stone age people?

So many different tribes spread out. Some were straight up nigger tier and even worse. #notallinjuns

I'm half Mohawk, half Irish. Hell of a drinking mix. Jekyll and Hyde. The land was conquered. Thank fucking god for the founding fathers,the constitution. Those fucks knew what they were doing. It could be worse,could still be kissing the ring...or be a faggot leaf.

all land is stolen, indian people died over 95% by disease, white men built great country now ruined by infest station of jew rats

Attached: Jamie_Raskin_official.jpg (3342x5013, 2.53M)

The oldest site in Alaska is only 12K years old and even though its been debunked every asshole still preaches the behring Land bridge Theory as if it is fact.
Injuns were not First, there was no Ice Free Corridor.
Injuns never hunted the mammoth, and the Solutreans were first by 10,000 years.

Attached: Screenshot (280).png (981x573, 403K)

Just can't get enough of the really dark nigger pussy.

Attached: 1552791110239m.jpg (819x1024, 70K)

btw white people were in America before the mongoloids. jew and native lawyers have constantly downplayed this as it would ruin there game. even then though who gives a shit who was first if your ancestors died by disease then that sucks if your ancestors died by conquest then fight again if you give so much shit.

Attached: 33848031_1731914016862615_2798842208969555968_n.jpg (960x939, 112K)

But we do, hence the discord amoungst ourselves
The victor, the spoils. Propaganda disguises the conquest

Discovery Doctrine but that only makes sense if you accept the laws of the colonizers so it's fuzzy. The US in fact violeted virtually every Injun treaty we made though so that brings up the question about the legality by our own standards.

Basically, the more active and effective the Indian Tribe was at resisting Whitey, the less of them there are today. This is why there is like zero Commanches, but a lot of Navajo (the biggest pussies) and Cherokee (the biggest cucks).

Attached: 7Os9y4f.jpg (1622x2958, 984K)

easy there thomas jefferson

You fucking faggots! You got sandniggers in your house and Senate! Faggot tranny's in your little girls toilet! END THE FED! TAXATION IS THEFT! WELCOME TO THE RESERVATION WHITEY!