Oh please. It took a lot of hard work to deliberately miss the point of the statement, but you somehow got it done.
Indians are specifically excluded from the "we" in "We fought them for the land, and we won." In that sentence, there are two parties, not one. Europeans and Indians. The Europeans were not going back to Europe to lick their monarchs' boots. And the Indians were not trudging back to Siberia. So the two groups fought. And one of them won. Bigly. Thank God, who helped them win.
Not only that, not there are many waves of migration and settlement, just since the last ice age, if which quite a few give us big question marks, and little else. For all the hundreds of thousands of mounds destroyed, most predated the Indians we know, and were simply taken over by the settling tribes. There was a lot of migration, especially out west, that occurred not too long before the colonists arrived, after what seems like a civilization collapse of some kind. On top of that, the tribes that were culturally migratory didn't even recognize land rights as we normally think of them, at the time, and couldn't really have land stolen, anyway.
So, B&J's will virtue signal like this, to no end. But, would they support a tribe that is still trying to get correct treatment by the US or state governments, as defined by treaties previously agreed to? Yeah, how do you like them crickets and tumbleweeds?
DAMN THIS INSUFFERABLE LIE
THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT FOUNDED ON "STOLEN" OR "INDIGENOUS" LAND
THE INDIANS DIDN'T SPROUT UP OUT OF THE UTAH OR NEBRASKA SOIL
THEY DIDN'T LIKE IT ON THE CONTINENT WHERE THEY WERE LIVING, SO THEY IMMIGRATED HERE. JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.
THEY WALKED ACROSS THE BERING LAND BRIDGE, THROUGH ALASKA AND CANADA, DOWN SOUTH (WHERE THE WEATHER IS WARMER) TO AMERICA.
THEN WE FOUGHT THEM FOR THE LAND, AND WE WON. PERIOD.
THAT'S HOW THIS WORKS.
I like it
Hee-heee RIGHTEOUS!!!
Indians are part of the "we" as well. It's not like they are excluded when we talk about America.
Oh please. It took a lot of hard work to deliberately miss the point of the statement, but you somehow got it done.
Indians are specifically excluded from the "we" in "We fought them for the land, and we won." In that sentence, there are two parties, not one. Europeans and Indians. The Europeans were not going back to Europe to lick their monarchs' boots. And the Indians were not trudging back to Siberia. So the two groups fought. And one of them won. Bigly. Thank God, who helped them win.
Put the capslock down, son!
Not only that, not there are many waves of migration and settlement, just since the last ice age, if which quite a few give us big question marks, and little else. For all the hundreds of thousands of mounds destroyed, most predated the Indians we know, and were simply taken over by the settling tribes. There was a lot of migration, especially out west, that occurred not too long before the colonists arrived, after what seems like a civilization collapse of some kind. On top of that, the tribes that were culturally migratory didn't even recognize land rights as we normally think of them, at the time, and couldn't really have land stolen, anyway.
So, B&J's will virtue signal like this, to no end. But, would they support a tribe that is still trying to get correct treatment by the US or state governments, as defined by treaties previously agreed to? Yeah, how do you like them crickets and tumbleweeds?