A reader sent me this comment and even though I don’t agree with him or her, I think it was very well written and deserves it’s own post. Here it is:
AnonymousJune 20, 2013 at 4:46 PM
I've enjoyed your blog, up until this post. These arguments have no basis and no substance. Indians live in India, while Native Americans are the descendants of people who have been indigenous to this land for OVER 10,000 YEARS. It doesn't matter whether your ancestors arrived in the 1600's or the 1900's, all European and later immigrants have been relative newcomers.
Yes, it's our home, but that makes us "Americans", not "Native Americans".
Also, the archaeological and anthropological evidence is pretty clear; although there have been local skirmishes throughout history, there is no evidence of any war ever taking place in North America prior to the colonial settler's western expansion. Some ancient wars occurred in the tropical regions to our south, but none on what is now lower-48 American soil.
Most important, as a Patriot, I'm surprised at your failure to recognize the obvious - that the defenders are ALWAYS on a "higher moral ground" than the invaders. The offenders are, by definition, the aggressors who won't leave us the hell alone. The battle belongs not to the one who has "overpowered" another, but to the righteous who are simply defending their homes.
It's simple. Either you believe in Rightful Liberty or you don't
And here is my response:
I'm sorry, but I believe you are wrong on all counts. First of all like I mentioned before, there is no statute of limitations on being the offspring of immigrants. Everyone, everywhere, with the possible exceptions of some African tribes, is the offspring of immigrants. If you are going to use the amount of time some people have been in a specific area to make them an exception to the rule, what is the cut-off point? 10,000 years? 1000 years? 100 years? Whatever figure one might come up with is arbitrary at best.
Secondly, as long as you are using periods of time to try to legitimize something, when the Europeans discovered the New World, they called the people living here Indians, and we have been doing so for over 500 years. Native American is some bullshit term that came into vogue a few decades ago. We both know the definitions of "native" and "American", so I don't have to explain them to you, and they shouldn't take on some new meanings when used together.
Third, to suggest that North American Indian tribes did not go to war with each other is ridiculous. They had weapons of war when, and long before the first Europeans arrived, and Braves were described as fierce warriors. If they had no experience with war, they would have never given the colonists and settlers any trouble, but in many cases, they put up a hell of a good fight. (Which could have only been done if they had a great deal of experience.) That's not just a matter of archaeological theory, it's a matter of historical record, and since various tribes did use aggression against each other, they are not morally superior to us.
On your last point you're wrong too, unless you think that the North should have not invaded the South to restore the Union and abolish slavery. The land always goes to the victor. I know that's not pretty, but it's true. I was not making a statement about the way things should be in some utopia, I just telling you how it is and always has been. From a practical standpoint it HAS to be this way. Think about it, if the strong are prevented from taking what they want, we end up having to spread ourselves the world over defending the weak, and we simply do not have the resources to do that and even if we did, as soon as we left whoever we were supporting to their own devices, the stronger aggressor would just walk right in and take over.
I know it sounds like a noble cause, but we have tried and failed at it too many times. Liberals and conservatives alike are tired of us sending our men and women around the world for lost causes. Success (if you define success as creating a nation that is capable of defending itself against aggressive neighbors) is almost impossible. Even Western Europe would have never been able to defend itself against the Soviet Union without us standing behind them.
I know the Christian view is to defend the weak, but if you look at this from an evolutionary standpoint, humans are social creatures, we evolved as societies rather than strictly as individuals. Wars since the beginning of human existence have been the mechanism for natural selection and survival of the fittest in human beings. Like I said it's not nice, it's not pretty, but neither is a lion killing a zebra. There are many terrible, awful things about war, but without it, humans would probably still be living in the stone age. Moral of the story: Keep Your Country Strong.
If Americans are expected to give up any part of this country to the Indians, then all people across the world should have to give up what they gained through aggression and war, and it only makes sense to start with the first offenders,since they have been enjoying their "ill-gotten" gains for a longer period of time. When other countries start making concessions, then I will consider having America make concessions.
One last thing, I don't want to sound like I don't respect your opinion. You sound like you are a decent, moral individual. But I think you are looking at the world from a standpoint of how you would like things to be, rather than how things really are. Thank you for your comment.
P.S. If you are proud of what you have to say, sign your real name instead of using “anonymous”. Signing as anonymous decreases your credibility and makes you look like a coward.