It's the control. If one Native tribe still controlled the ancestral grounds of another tribe, then you probably would have some people calling that out... but they don't. The US government has ALL the control, every tribe within US territory, and all of their land, is at the governments mercy.

[–] nautilus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No reason to not give you the benefit of the doubt, but you’re giving off heavy “they were already killing each other so it’s no big deal” vibes. No insult intended, just what I’m picking up.

Intertribal conflict is the tribes’ business, colonizing and displacing is colonists’ business. To be clear, external invasion is the concern here

[–] lukini@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nope not that at all. I'm against all war is all. And many people in many countries all around the world are benefiting from awful wars that happened centuries before they were born, possibly from people they aren't even descended from. To call me and anyone else who moved to the US afterwards "colonists" is imo a misrepresentation and unfair. And I'm not saying the native Americans don't deserve more than they're been given so far.

My point is more getting people thinking about how tribes that early Americans wronged were also wronged before that. If we fix things to return them to how it was, why does the final state of tribes before European arrival get chosen as the correct state? We likely have no idea who was on specific land first here in America. We just know the final state and some of the preceding wars before then. Keep going back and there's always a new victim.

[–] nautilus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

Entirely valid, all great points - and to clarify, specifically colonialism from the colonists that colonized the land, no pejorative usage against anyone here

[–] TigrisMorte@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

Because those Tribes are not currently benefiting from the land they took. And most likely are in the same boat if they still exist.