This kills the Sup Forums

This kills the Sup Forums.

>A explorer is a refugee.

Piss off, it's European land.

>implying the yuropoors asked

I remember they said refugees welcome and disappeared.

They will reply by being hypocrits or jus spouting racism and stupid lies.
Pol cant justify its beliefs

>Sorry if we let you in our people will cease to exist and our way of life lost forever as our country is taken over by foreigners bringing a religion that is incompatible with our kind.

On what planet is this is an argument FOR immigration?

Two things

First, the pilgrims were socialists until their population died off enough for them to try the free market.

Second, the native savages lost.

Wew.

...

>retards think this doesn't support our position

>implying they didn't sell their land for glass beads
>implying the settlers got help from the natives when they first came
>implying the natives didn't try to kill the settlers before they got roflstomped

define 'refugee' and we'll see if it means the above criteria

>refugees welcome
>they welcomed them by scalping them and burning their villages
Thanks for correcting that one ;)

True.

Underrated

The American does not need such specifically targetted posts, you can just hand him a gun and he'll happily kill himself.

America is rightful English clay.
/thread

Rep Indian: We can't let al these europeans refugees into our country, they're not integrating into our culture and they're destroying what we have.
Liberal Indian: You. Fucking. RACIST!!!
Other liberal indians: RACIIIIST! STOP BEING EUROPHOBIC!!!

Pretty sure that the Pilgrims didn't actually do anything wrong

It was the chartered private colony companies that started genociding the natives

I could be wrong though I didn't study history, i only know this because I could see Plymouth Rock from the house I grew up in

This supports our viewpoint

But they did accept them
And where are they now?

Good thing we're colonialists here to take your land and there is nothing you can do to stop us.

this.
>let illegals roam in your land
>get conquered

See, this is what we want, a fair fight. No one claimed "das racissst" back then. Everyone understood that there are differences between the races and that diversity + proximity = war. EVERY TIME.

>(((free market)))

I wonder who could be behind this post..

>invaders are refugees

I don't see how this refutes anything Sup Forums says. Accepting refugees is a bad idea.

Me.

I'm behind this post.

...

If an invader wants and takes by force then they are the effective new sovereignty. There is nothing nice about it. This is how countries have always formed.

Refugees are a different issue entirely. It is an issue of supplanting one population for another (or many) artificially and unsustainably to the potential detriment of more-native citizens who are already much more alike than outside families and loners.

Oh look, a people who were nearly wiped out by foreigners and firewater! We'd better open our borders and legalise weed!

Liberals: so incapable of thinking their statements through, they can't tell when they're proving your point for you.

>knowing different tactics of invasion and recognizing them being applied to you, thus wanting to retaliate is somehow bad.
The evolutionary fit shall survive and it is only time that determines that.
>muh imperialism and racism.
absolutely, people that were killed didn't fit the bill, fitting the bill is part of the civilization process, it is the reason there's a difference between black people and niggers

No it doesn't it proves our point.

Arguing for refugess while making a case against them?

No it kills the native population.

Good thing they weren't refugees then, huh?

The only good Red Man is a dead one. I think we did a good job on that front.

Really makes you think?

B-but guys, whites are the worst! Death to the whities!!

>nomads
>owning land
pick one

Except Europeans forced their way in and didn't ask to be let in by the natives. The natives more or less resisted the invasion but succumbed due to a number of reasons.

I commend them for not backing down though, I think we should do the same and defend our lands with the same ferocity that the native Americans did.

The Native American was CONQUERED by the European Caucasoid, exact same for the Australoid.
People are so fucking stupid.

The colonialization was a brutal conquest by technologicallly superior nations. Refugee resettlement is class warfare. A better metaphor for what we are doing to the Syrians et al is the Trail of Tears.

Yup, and then all locals been killed. And what's going to happen to everyone including libtards.

Leftists reason that because whites once took some lands from original population everyone should commit a cultural suicide because of it.

It's almost like there were different tribes and nations amongst the natives that behaved differently towards the European migrants.

Meh, personally I think this country has a bad habit of only going halfway with these things. If we'd utterly wiped out the natives instead of just forcing them onto reservations we wouldn't have to deal with them at all in the modern world. Same with the nigs, the slaves should have all either been killed or sent back to Africa after the emancipation proclamation.

...

The main thing is that they didn't recognize themselves as a coherent group, so anything done to one tribe wasn't really being done to "The Indians," just that tribe.

This is the parallel you want to avoid.

Yeah, and they had nothing but the best intentions, right? Nothing bad happened, right?

So, the comparison being made here is that refugees are coming here with the intention of taking our land and displacing our people?

>they let them in
>a few years later they are all killed

Really activates my almonds

Pocahontas was acting like a swedish woman in 2016.

btw. doubt that muslims will have a thanksgiving day for the leftists that they will stone for being degenerates

You act as if liberal cucks think things through before they open their cock suckers

That white man and his family are sure to eventually assimilate and become Indians.

>too stupid to see this validates the Sup Forums

taking in too many refugees kills a nations culture and most of their original inhabitants

>Indians get wiped out by mass immigration
>this is supposedly an argument in favor of mass migration

>This is a fucking invasion. Drink this.

>How did mass immigration work out for the people on the left?

Agreed

I don't get why Leftists think that just because someone arrived somewhere first it means that they are entitled to the land.

If 50% of the world's land is pre inhabited by 1% of the world's population does that mean the remaining 99% should be content with the other 50%? Just because your people have spread themselves over a large geography it doesn't mean you're entitled to all that space, especially if you underutilize it.

someone watched mollymeme

500 years before columbus the vikings came to canada. the natives might have slaughtered them and told them to stay the fuck out of canada.

we should learn from them.

Not an argument.

Sounds about right.

He's fantastic, isn't he?

The fair spoils of war, suck it listerine drinkers

I never understood this argument. Doesn't this imply the native Americans never should have accepted the new Americans because it resulted in their genocide? That's a clear cut anti immigration argument. Liberals are retarded.

To bad you got cucked by a bunch of farmers.

Liberals are suggesting that we deserve to be genocided in retribution for what they believe we did to the native Americans.

Nope. The indians are dead.

Can say the same to you.

Liberals believe that Westerners should allow themselves to be genocided, so using their logic yes we should let in the foreign invaders.

They did what the refugees are going to Europe now. Just the name of the game.

>conquerors
>refugees

This kills the native.

>Aztecs vs. Vikings

The Ultimate Heathen Deathmatch.

I'd pay good money to see this.

Liberals don't believe in spoils of war, they think the winning side should be altruistic and self sabotage themselves for the sake or "morality" or "fairness", even though every single historical example of one people conquering another disproves this.

They were EXPLORERS not conquerors. After the war started they became conquerors.

Bro, you can literally play it.

> 1 post by this ID

yea we came we saw we conquered, we werent all "hurrr our lives suck so we ran to hide here"

it was more like "Mine!"

The difference is the Europeans aren't fighting back and actually doing the opposite. They aren't being conquered, they're committing suicide.

...

no, This proves that refugees can not be accepted.
Because the Indians were killed, the land was taken away

The Natives had it right. Don't take a foreign invasion lying down. Fight back. We have much to learn from them.

...

Daily reminder that pics like OP's are actually an argument supporting Sup Forums's stance on the matter.

Europeans, after thousands of years of brutal warfare between themselves and other civilizations, understood the consequence of "peaceful settlement" in foreign lands, this usually being armed conflict between native and non-native populations, with the victor acquiring territorial dominance.

Native American tribes, being rather mobile and decentralized, did not understand this, and were easily out-bred and conquered.

>Goes to New World and has Iron
>Native checks it out and offers trading
>Mass killing of animals for pelts cause the majority of them in the area to be killed so natives go out west to find more - natives also fight each other for pelts or Iron.

Refugees don't have something we need that isn't uncivilized (We could try slavery but still it's uncivilized).

Yeah, it really confounds me that faggot liberals think that somehow is a pro immigration argument.

...

VIETNAM IS RIGHTFUL AMERICAN CLAY AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH FILTHY GOOKS GET OFF MY BOARD

Implying people without a country can accept refugees in the first place. It's pretty much just wilderness at that point.

...

Please read up on how the war in Vietnam ended. We also had a pretty sick K/D ratio

It ended with you leaving and the Commies staying.
Also we got a pretty sick K/D ratio in the war of independence and the war of 1812 with you so yeah.

see, even Native Americans don't like refugees!

Are you DENNIS KEARNEY the ALLCAPSFAG?

So, what is your point?

First off, not all Native tribes were welcoming of newcomers.

If the Indians had been less tolerant of the colonists and attacked them all on sight, would anybody have blamed them? I wouldn't; its natural for a group of people to see an entirely different group of people coming to live where you live and not wanting to share the same space with them.

>muh k/d ratio

real life isn't cawwadoody you teenager