Comments by "bart thomassen thomassen" (@thomassenbart) on "Are We Living on Stolen Land? | 5-Minute Videos" video.

Where are you getting this? There is no evidence for the claims you are making regarding cartography and universal knowledge of anything by ancient natives in the Americas. This is foolishness. However, if you can demonstrate something substantive I will welcome it.
1
Treaties are only valid while they are useful to all concerned. As soon as they are not, they are void. Given that the Indians themselves did not have anything resembling property rights, government, law or a mechanism of enforcement, feeling guilty for improving the world is a strange idea. The Natives were highly warlike people, engaged in constant warfare against their enemies, conquering and being conquered, just like anywhere else on Earth. The fact that they lost so badly, has more to do with disease than broken treaties.
1
Yes, you missed quite a bit. You are incorrect in your history and assumptions. The Amherst story is not evidence for your wider claim nor even in the environment at the time. Also, the suggestion was made in the midst of a siege by the Natives against the British garrison. Killing your enemies is the objective of war. However, there is no evidence that the tactic worked. The siege was ultimately unsuccessful but not because the Indians suddenly died from smallpox. The assumption that biological warfare was contemplated, known about or used previous to the above Fort Pitt instance, is complete fantasy and cannot be used to bolster a case for genocide. The examples given during the American conquest of the West and the Indian wars, are way past time for the mass deaths, by European diseases of the natives. These wars were largely small affairs, with a few hundred warriors against similar numbers of soldiers. The exception being the mass gathering at Little Big Horn, but even here the Indians could not sustain the thousands of warriors and people gathered but for only a few days. The fact is, that by the 1860s, the independent Indian tribes numbered only a fraction of what their populations had been in the 15th century. It is incorrect to believe that the disease factor was relevant at this time.
1
No, there is no evidence that Europeans or Americans deliberately infected natives with disease. This is a myth. Germ theory was not even accepted until circa 1900 after the Indian wars were over. No one understood anything about disease or transmission. Malaria, bad air remember, the humours, imbalance of elements in the body, demons, God etc...The vast majority of natives died from these diseases before the Pilgrims arrived in New England. In that area, just 10 years prior a series of plagues wiped out 90% of the pop., which is why the English found it as deserted as it was. Disease was carried throughout the Americas by pigs, cattle, chickens, fowl in general, as well as human to human contact. In the first few hundred years post 1st contact is when the great plagues killed everyone and the vast majority of those victims, fell without ever seeing a Euro-American. Who thinks the USA is the only democracy on Earth? Where do you get that from?
1
Except the Natives were savages, objectively speaking. All tribes north of Mexico, engaged in cannibalism, at least ritual torture of enemies but more often as entertainment for the tribe, were constantly at war, were stone age peoples and had no concept of private property, law, government, writing, and a thousand other basic concepts. This is the definition of savage.
1
The USA is stolen land as all land is stolen/conquered land. No nation on Earth exists that is not inhabited by conquerors or their descendants. Also, at the time of the European discovery, the natives were furiously warring amongst and conquering each other. One might plausibly argue that aside from the overwhelming influence of disease on the natives, the principal reason they were overwhelmed was the inherent divisions and hatred against the traditional enemy as opposed to the new Europeans, who were used and integrated as just another tribe in the great game of the Americas.
1
Indian lands meaning what exactly? That native tribes occasionally camped there before moving on? The vast majority of tribes above Mexico, were hunter gatherer, stone age people, who migrated about, constantly warred with other tribes, displacing and being displaced, which was what happened when the Euro-Americans arrived as well. The Indians were displaced and the land was made to benefit the world, as opposed to providing for a few hundred souls from season to season.
1
There is no evidence for your assertions of Native decline pre-Columbian discovery.
1
You don't understand many of the basic concepts here. One is that of property rights. Indians did not have such an idea, so stealing land was not possible, any more than stealing air was possible. Why is conquest not a natural human right? Make your case. Every nation on Earth is based upon the right of conquest. Even today, Russia fighting Ukraine is operating under this same principal. Ultimately, all ownership is based upon violence or the threat of violence, either from the party or government. Go back to a state of nature and test your theory out and see if there is a natural right to own anything in the face of aggression.
1