What's the refutation for this?

what's the refutation for this?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=AanxYZRGViU
youtube.com/watch?v=N3472Q6kvg0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>"Then have these blankets, featha'nigger."

American asks:

>Have I broken any laws by being here?

Native man:

>?

Pointing out that they're using the example of a people devastated by ethnic displacement to argue that we totally shouldn't be worried by ethnic displacement.

...

B E A D S
E
A
D
S

It's pretty racist to just put all of the various Native American tribes into a single demographic.

Can I get a source for this?
Some faggot keeps shitting up my FB feed with annoying "SJW Natives were here first" shit

pilgrims moved in anyway and eventually destroyed native societies.
shitskins will do the same unless we stop them.
unlike the pilgrims tho, shitskins will not introduce a better system to this land

1) Native Americans were and are not a single group of people with set laws and a unified culture. They are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of unified groups, which had completely different religions, cultures, rules, authority structures and lifestyles. Also, the mostly all hated and wanted to kill each other.
2) The Pilgrims were not immigrants or refugees. To be a refugee or immigrant, you must be moving to a country. America was not a country at the time.

ununified groups*

look up "manhattan deal"

>In 1630, the Dutch purchased Staten Island, also for 60 guilders value. A copy of the deed explained that the supplies offered to local chiefs in exchange for unfettered right to the land included kettles, axes, hoes, Jew’s harps, anddrilling awls, the last of which were essential for ramping up the manufacturing of wampum, the shell-beads that made up the local currency.

>jew's harps
kek

Why would I refute this? Refugees obviously lead to a Native genocide.

Kek. Also native Americans didn't have 'states' nor borders. No immigration or citizenship laws. Nothing was codified like it is now. You can argue it doesn't matter but it wasn't the same.

>muh beads
Still waiting on proof this was ever a thing.

OP the refutation is simple, native americans had no established law system and got fucked by massive unchecked immigration, bring that up to liberals and they'll shit their pants

We wuz inv8rs n shiet

But seriously, life as a human is an unending struggle for territory and control.
We came, we fought, we won.
We will keep our victory spoils, kthxbye

we later swapped it for Suriname. historic mistake.

This.

The injuns were dumb and they paid the price.

Don't be dumb like them, kids. Don't accept strangers into your home country.

>Refugees show up on Native American land
>Native Americans accept them
>Native Americans are then killed off and their land is taken

>Refugees show up on white man land
>White man accepts them
>?

>Native Americans didn't build America to be the superpower it is today

There isn't one.
The Europeans came in, and did to the Natives exactly as Europe fears that Muslims will do (and are in the process of doing) to them.

Isn't it already an anti-immigration stance?

Where are the fucking native Americans now?

Better yet where would the native americans be now if the first settlers were Muslim instead of christian?

You don't apologize for conquest, that's the fucking point.

>what's the refutation for this?
None, that savage will be dead from smallpox or cholera in a week.

So for some reason we don't consider America conquered? Also, I have native blood so I could careless.

just google it you shithead. a source will be the first or second link.

Natives didn't have a country or any concept of property ownership for that matter

Not trying to be a leftie shill, but can't the same type of logic apply to current loose immigration policies?

Whites brought in migrants by voting for leftwing politicians who promised them free shit.

>Local indians let illegal invading immigrants with different language, culture, religion and morals stay in their land
>Local indians were exterminated

>WE MUST IMPORT MORE REFUGEES!

That's why it was called CONQUEST.

And that's why these sandniggers invading us are also an attempt at conquest, not refugees.

>So you are saying refugees were bad for the natives and everyone else?

>A few tribes trade for beads (among countless other tools and curiosities) and suddenly EVERY redskin is le happy bead man

The refutation is that if you let refugees into your country they kill you.

So don't let refugees into your country.

...

D E A L
M
A
K
E
R

...

How about a bottle of Jack Daniels and a 24 oz bottle of Listerine to change your mind, Chief Crow's Elbow?

>what's the refutation for this?

that's ok, we're not into accepting terms from stone age savages

...

...

>Fuck you, we have guns you don't

Why not this?

...

>muh solutreans meme

Kill yourself. That has been debunked a long time ago.

Manhattan was bought for pennies of what it was worth today for beads and other tradable items.

Other colonies and future settlers negotiated with the tribes for other parcels of land with beads and other pieces of tradable items like hatchets and cloth.

On the scale of it, the Injuns were shitty businessmen.

chuggs never had a country

they were literally camping

That filename.

We don't refute it, because it literally proves our point. The natives allowed mass immigration from a foreign continent, and were displaced, assimilated, and forgotten.

Any leftist who uses this fact as an argument for mass migration needs to be reminded of their insensitivity to the genocide of the Native Americans by those migrants.

Thats literally how Kikes justify taking over most of Palestine...and Westerners actually made real trade deals with the local owners and didn't just bribe some local warlords and oligarchs

Then where did the Celts come from 13K years ago? You think they just showed up on the west coast of Europe for no reason what-so-ever? Around the same time as ravaging siberian Cannibals started roaming around the land you say? Interesting.

We shouldn't make the same mistake as the injuns

History repeats itself doesn't it? Don't make the same mistakes white man.

>subjugation of a race is "peaceful"
I agree though. There were no qualms about conquering lands back then, especially when there were still lands to claim and territories to take.

I suppose Russia is bringing up that colonial spirit again though

Might makes right in this world and laws are for cucks.

but that's a pro Trump argument, you realize most of Sup Forums is pro Trump right?

We know what comes next.

They didnt ask for permission, they straight up murdered the natives

Just like said natives murdered the one who were here before to get that land

Smallpox killed most of them.

If it continues to the point that western civilisation falls to it then it's our fault and we lose, too bad, but that's not an argument in favour of resigning and letting it continue.

Yes, native laws were broken.

Nothing. The person arguing this point just destroyed themselves for you. If the native americans hadn't accepted refugees, they'd still be here today.

>immigrants are bad and kill people
>just look at the first european settlers

>implying native americans had any sort of legal code

>t. Andrew Jackson

You show them THIS and let them see how bigoted and racist the injuns truly were.

youtube.com/watch?v=AanxYZRGViU

>accepted refugees
>got genocided

Oh their government had laws of immigration? What about epa rules, they have those too?

This was their law
youtube.com/watch?v=N3472Q6kvg0

They should have built a wall

They weren't refugees.

>Okay I'll just buy this land off you then, here's some guns and metal objects in compensation

/thread

...

>Implying they gave a shit about being accepted
The puritans were religious extremists who didn't give a fuck about anyone but themselves.

fire sticks

>escaped religious persecution in order to religiously persecute
It's like poetry

They saw weakness and opportunity and took advantage of that, The underdeveloped culture stood no chance,

Now poo skins and happy merchants see the same with the white man, The white man is strong but their young are weak, They will destroy you and everything you work for by your own fruit of loin.

Remember who you are white man, You are as cunning as any jew, Remember your place in the world and seize it.

It's more like they were kicked out. The king helped fund their pilgrimage, if I'm not mistaken.

Leftists want to criticise immigration in order to criticise an anti-immigration stance

It's doublethink at its finest

>Have some boom sticks and whisky

They were, although they thought the Dutch and other Europeans were the shitty businessmen.

Indians didn't have the concept of land ownership, so selling land was like you sometimes see those ''buy your moon land property deed now!'' scams. They sold things that weren't theirs (at least according to their own concepts) and got ''free'' stuff in exchange for basically nothing.

People may argue that we couldn't have bought something if the indians weren't the owners of the sold land, but in that case it was terra nullia and the settlers could even have kept their beads.

Terra Nullius cunt. A bunch of huts isn't enough to claim ownership of a giant continent.

property is such a meme anyway

All this does is prove immigration of undesirable cultures is never a good thing.

For a Swede, I bet it is.

Have you ever seen a boomstick before? Watch this.

FIXED VERSION

>

white people think if they can kill you they deserve your shit, simple as that. they're a bunch of savages

It would have been a good thing if they had not accepted refugees.

They would still have their way of life and their culture, and loads of them would not have died. Which is exactly what we are worried about when accepting Syrian and Middle Eastern refugees.

The pilgrims weren't refugees. They came with resources and developed the land.

If Syrian refugees showed up with millions of dollars each and invested all that money into developing the land they wanted to live.on it would be a radically different situation.

Right of conquest.

And taking in those refugees worked out real well for the Indians didn't it? Are you suggesting we SHOULDN'T learn from the mistakes of others?

The refutation is that they got conquered by a more powerful society. Native American societies conquered and enslaved each other before we got here, they weren't sitting around singing fucking kumbaya they were waging war with each other just like all the other societies on the planet.

If you lay claim to two fucking continents as your ancestral land then you better be able to defend them.

The Indian would actually be trading his wife and kids to get a bunch of guns to try and kill of their rival tribes, but what he doesn't know is that their rival tribes also traded with that very same Pilgram.

The weak should fear the strong.
Pilgrims were stronger and smarter than those naif horse fuckers.
That's why we whould remember history and don't let ourself fucked the same way we fucked.

>imblying they werent invaders