How do I argue this?

Red injuns were just chinks who overran the earlier inhabitants. Nothing native about these murdering primates.

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.

Attached: 1570002743278.jpg (1200x2462, 183.96K)

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.

Attached: 1579806814894.jpg (739x415, 33.82K)