Red injuns were just chinks who overran the earlier inhabitants. Nothing native about these murdering primates.
How do I argue this?
the first "americans" were actually white caucasians anyway. look up "cactus hill" archaeology
This, and conquering can be defended against.
I believe we should begin defending ourselves.
You speak very clearly for someone with a 0.30 BAC chief shitsonbus.
Honestly though the idea that the United States purely conquered the Indians is also largely false. A lot of land was purchased not only from Indians directly but also from foreign governments.
While there were some unfortunate outcomes of our interactions with natives I was surprised how much positive interaction existed as well. I think that's why they don't teach certain parts of our founding in schools. It will totally obliterate the native victim narrative.
>How do I argue this?
You can't Zang.