Addressing the “stolen land” argument regarding immigration policy in USA.

Aladin

Aladin

Proud pedophile
Joined
Jul 20, 2022
Posts
8,926
Reputation
9,821
A common libcuck argument used in political debates is white people “stole land from Native Americans (I think calling them Indians is more proper.)

But this is flawed.

Indians weren’t a unified group, but a bunch of different tribes. If tribes weren’t unified how can we state Indians owned this land?

Why can Indians be segregated and tribal but suddenly we whites have to give them credit for “owning the land which we stole”, only not to give it back but to be more loose with our immigration policies?
 
  • JFL
  • Woah
Reactions: Imretarded?, klip11, maarda and 2 others
By that logic we can also say that Europe is not for white people because homo sapiens originate from Africa so anyone can live there and claim it as their own.

Also, calling them "Indians" does not make sense as "India" means "land of the Indus river" and this river is in Pakistan. We do not have ant connection to the Americas.

And not sure why people from modern-day "India" don't say they are Bharatis instead. The Indus river is not in their country, but ours.
 
  • +1
  • Hmm...
Reactions: FaceandBBC, goodgamebro, wishIwasSalludon and 7 others
most land is "stolen"
 
It's a rage bait gotcha 'argument' nothing more. The true reason for immigration is economics plain and simple.
 
  • +1
Reactions: crushing sluts@100%, ChiraqJihad, wishIwasSalludon and 2 others
also, we traded in beads and firewater straight up
 
By that logic we can also say that Europe is not for white people because homo sapiens originate from Africa so anyone can live there and claim it as their own.

Also, calling them "Indians" does not make sense as "India" means "land of the Indus river" and this river is in Pakistan. We do not have ant connection to the Americas.

And not sure why people from modern-day "India" don't say they are Bharatis instead. The Indus river is not in their country, but ours.
Native Americans doesn’t make sense. America was founded after whites took over.

Furthermore the EU United white European countries. But tribes on the North American continent weren’t United. Why can’t we view United people vs non United people different?
 
  • JFL
Reactions: Deleted member 84469 and Acion
Native Americans doesn’t make sense. America was founded after whites took over.

Furthermore the EU United white European countries. But tribes on the North American continent weren’t United. Why can’t we view United people vs non United people different?
They are considered native because their ancestors settled there before anyone else did, same reason why Europeans are considered native to Europe. Why do you care so much though? It is not like the US government would do what is right and give them financial compensation.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 84469 and Acion
Idk why any of this would matter.

The person who owns the land is the person who can claim it (through force). Everything else is retardation.
 
They are considered native because their ancestors settled there before anyone else did, same reason why Europeans are considered native to Europe. Why do you care so much though? It is not like the US government would do what is right and give them financial compensation.
Why do modern natives deserve compensation.

Do you believe niggers deserve reputations?
 
ownership of a land just means who has it
 
  • +1
Reactions: Aladin
Idk why any of this would matter.

The person who owns the land is the person who can claim it (through force). Everything else is retardation.
This topic is about immigration.
 
This topic is about immigration.
you take their 'stolen land' argument at face value when it has nothing to do with the real reason for -their- immigration policy.

you are arguing against a strawman -they- set up to distract you.
 
  • +1
Reactions: ReadBooksEveryday
Why do modern natives deserve compensation.

Do you believe niggers deserve reputations?
Because their land was stolen and their ancestors were genocided. As for Afro-Americans, that is a discussion for another day. First and foremost it should be Native Americans who should be given priority.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 84469, ReadBooksEveryday and Acion
you take their 'stolen land' argument at face value when it has nothing to do with the real reason for -their- immigration policy.

you are arguing against a strawman -they- set up to distract you.
No I realize the real reason.

It’s their attempt to change demographics.
 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: Acion and MoggerGaston
Because their land was stolen and their ancestors were genocided. As for Afro-Americans, that is a discussion for another day. First and foremost it should be Native Americans who should be given priority.
Don't forget the Poles


Kaczynski said a parliamentary committee found the losses amounted to 6.2 trillion zlotys (roughly $1.32 trillion or €1.32 trillion) and added that Poland would officially demand reparations.

Germany will have to pay (me).
 
  • +1
Reactions: ReadBooksEveryday and Gengar
  • +1
  • Love it
  • JFL
Reactions: klip11, ReadBooksEveryday and MoggerGaston
Because their land was stolen and their ancestors were genocided.
Did you not read this thread?

What about how tribes were seoerate?

Why do we treat tribes as some unified force when tribes weren’t?
 
IF I TAKE U LAND AWAY ,. ITS MINE . NOT "STOLEN " .

IF U NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO PROTECT UR THINGS ,. THEY NOT YOURS .




THE GAZELLE BELONG TO THE LION .
 
  • Love it
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 84469 and MoggerGaston
Did you not read this thread?

What about how tribes were seoerate?

Why do we treat tribes as some unified force when tribes weren’t?
I did but your thread makes no sense.
 
weren't all these tribes native-indian though
Weren’t unified.

If a tribe is based on western USA can that tribe claim ownership to eastern USA because “Native American” if the eastern USA tribe go 100% genocided.
 
No I realize the real reason.

It’s their attempt to change demographics.
Yes, so there is no point in arguing about this. It's just a distraction and aiming to defuse it is just a waste of time without merit since nobody with actual power cares about this shit.

You are arguing about a strawman.
scarecrow-in-a-meadow.jpg

There is no end-result, no conclusion, nothing to gain from doing it.
 
  • +1
Reactions: ReadBooksEveryday
I did but your thread makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense.

U just hate white people dominating the best countries on earth.
 
It makes perfect sense.

U just hate white people dominating the best countries on earth.
I think cuckmerica is a shithole. And no, I just say what is right. You are just hateful for some reason.
 
Yes, so there is no point in arguing about this. It's just a distraction and aiming to defuse it is just a waste of time without merit since nobody with actual power cares about this shit.

You are arguing with a strawman.
scarecrow-in-a-meadow.jpg

There is no end-result, no conclusion, nothing to gain from doing it.
No one on this forum has “power”

Should we not discuss anything?
 
IF I TAKE U LAND AWAY ,. ITS MINE . NOT "STOLEN " .

IF U NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO PROTECT UR THINGS ,. THEY NOT YOURS .




THE GAZELLE BELONG TO THE LION .
this
 
  • Love it
Reactions: Rzn
I think cuckmerica is a shithole. And no, I just say what is right. You are just hateful for some reason.
I’m hateful for thinking white people should be allowed to have their own countries?
 
No one on this forum has “power”

Should we not discuss anything?
that was not the argument i was making and u know better than this
 
  • +1
Reactions: ReadBooksEveryday
  • +1
Reactions: yandex99
I’m in America but I think this is white people continent.
So you fully support a demographic change. Then you won't mind if it happens elsewhere or in the US centuries from now?
 
No I genuinely don’t can you please be clearer.
people with power don't care about this stuff, it's irrelevant, meaningless in that sense that in the real world it doesn't matter.

you can discuss it here, but it's like discussing checkers when the real world is chess. You are discussing a game that nobody is playing or cares about in the real world.
 
  • +1
Reactions: ReadBooksEveryday
So you fully support a demographic change. Then you won't mind if it happens elsewhere or in the US centuries from now?
No I don’t support it. But two wrongs don’t make a right.
 
Do you believe niggers deserve reputations?
Yes. The shit that was done to them was horrendous.

This is how black people where treated before the civil rights movement

EdCoyLynchingPhoto1 f 300x300
Service pnp cph 3a30000 3a39000 3a39200 3a39265r
220px Omaha courthouse lynching
Robert McDaniels

This is like some bestgore shit, but it was practiced in a 1st world country.

Giving black people reparations wouldn't even be difficult. American money has been digital longer than we have been alive. It's exactly like an in-game currency.
 
IF I TAKE U LAND AWAY ,. ITS MINE . NOT "STOLEN " .

IF U NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO PROTECT UR THINGS ,. THEY NOT YOURS .




THE GAZELLE BELONG TO THE LION .
how bro felt after writing this 🐺🐺🐺🔥🔥🔥💯💯💯🤑🤑🤑
 
  • Ugh..
Reactions: Rzn
A common libcuck argument used in political debates is white people “stole land from Native Americans (I think calling them Indians is more proper.)

But this is flawed.

Indians weren’t a unified group, but a bunch of different tribes. If tribes weren’t unified how can we state Indians owned this land?

Why can Indians be segregated and tribal but suddenly we whites have to give them credit for “owning the land which we stole”, only not to give it back but to be more loose with our immigration policies?
It’s a strawman

It’s stupid to argue about stolen land because it was 600+ years ago but it was stolen and they genocided all the natives.

There is no point of trying to ‘white superiority’ now because most people don’t give a shit. But you can’t deny history
 
It’s a strawman

It’s stupid to argue about stolen land because it was 600+ years ago but it was stolen and they genocided all the natives.

There is no point of trying to ‘white superiority’ now because most people don’t give a shit. But you can’t deny history
Do you think natives were United?
 
  • +1
Reactions: ReadBooksEveryday
Useless strawman argument with 0 substance. Posts above me have already made compelling arguments that go against your theory so I won't bother
 
  • +1
Reactions: ReadBooksEveryday
Useless strawman argument with 0 substance. Posts above me have already made compelling arguments that go against your theory so I won't bother
Nope you’re coping.

You’re just salty because you’re in a shithole country. Pissed off at your shitskin heritage (which dooms you into being STUCK in your shithole country)
 
By that logic we can also say that Europe is not for white people because homo sapiens originate from Africa so anyone can live there and claim it as their own.

Also, calling them "Indians" does not make sense as "India" means "land of the Indus river" and this river is in Pakistan. We do not have ant connection to the Americas.

And not sure why people from modern-day "India" don't say they are Bharatis instead. The Indus river is not in their country, but ours.
The Greeks and Iranians who came through the northwest around 2,500 years ago called the Indus as Indos. The land to the east of the river was called India. Indus river flows through India too and most of it's tributaries also flow through many regions of India.

1000076291
 
  • Hmm...
Reactions: Gengar
people with power don't care about this stuff, it's irrelevant, meaningless in that sense that in the real world it doesn't matter.
No it does matter. It’s the biggest topic in US elections.
you can discuss it here, but it's like discussing checkers when the real world is chess. You are discussing a game that nobody is playing or cares about in the real world.
See above.
 
Do you think natives were United?
Does it matter nigga? They all were killed
And by United, there was several different tribes. They did have alliances.

This arguement is redundant because your whole point stands on the pillar they weren’t United therefore it’s okay that we pillaged and raped them.

And by the way, it’s not as if United States was just formed from day 1 . Unity came from blood, lots of blood.
 
No it does matter. It’s the biggest topic in US elections.
You fell for their strawman like i already explained
 
Nope you’re coping.

You’re just salty because you’re in a shithole country. Pissed off at your shitskin heritage (which dooms you into being STUCK in your shithole country)
That's the reason this thread got ratioed in the replies isn't it? Also no I'm not pissed off about anything nigga. I'm not stuck anywhere. See my threads I'll be doing an internship in america if everyhting goes well. It's you who is living in a first world country but aren't reaping the benefits.
 
Does it matter nigga? They all were killed
And by United, there was several different tribes. They did have alliances.
They weren’t United.
This arguement is redundant because your whole point stands on the pillar they weren’t United therefore it’s okay that we pillaged and raped them.
No, it wasn’t okay.

But do two wrongs make a right?
And by the way, it’s not as if United States was just formed from day 1 . Unity came from blood, lots of blood.
So what?
 

Similar threads

F
Replies
19
Views
2K
CFW432
CFW432

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top