[anyonecancode]

That's a bit of a catch-22 argument, isn't it? If a history of violence and conquest invalidates land claims, then the white settlers who violently settled North America have no legitimate right to this land, right? But if that history doesn't invalidate their land claims, then you can't really turn around and say that somehow Comanche land claims are illegitimate.

Or maybe you're arguing that there is no such thing as morality in land claims, and it's simply a matter of who is better able to kill and steal, and white settlers just were better at this?

[sQL_inject]

Does anyone have a right to land, except for that which is enforceable by the threat of violence? Why are they called Native Americans? Is all land simply owned by the first foot put there anywhere in the planet?

I'm not defending "white" settlers, or any settlers. My goal is to dispel the intellectually lazy myth this article leads with.

[lowkey_]

Not the above commenter, but:

> stolen from the hands of the Native Americans who had stewarded them for millennia before colonialism in different forms devastated their tribes. Through invasions, plagues, violence, coercion, bribery, war, and lopsided deals with the United States government, Indigenous groups and their ways of life were nearly obliterated

This clearly implies that invasions, violence, war, were brought by the US government to indigenous groups.

In reality, their "way of life" always consisted of these things.

It's a clear myth being perpetuated in the language of this article — even in words like 'stewarded' vs. 'stolen'.