The Indigenous are seen as all one race when it’s convenient to the anti-white narrative, but then are seen as distinct separate races of people when it’s convenient to that same narrative. When I say, “white people gave the indigenous people a large chunk of land inside of Canada, known as Nunavut, on which they now self-govern themselves”, then the response is usually one which assumes that indigenous people are made up of several distinct races. I will usually hear something like, “Well that is fine for the Inuit in Northern Canada, but what about the other indigenous people like the xyz tribe? Where is the piece of territory on which they can self-govern?”
When discussing past wars fought for control of North and South America, all European whites are usually viewed as one monolithic race which simultaneously attacked and wiped out much of the singular monolithic Indigenous race of people. Anti-whites will completely ignore the fact that many of the indigenous tribes were constantly at war with one another over territory – sometimes conquering and reconquering each other back and forth. There were even times when the European settlers made treaties and alliances with one indigenous tribe to join with them in fighting against some other indigenous tribe or tribes. Yet when I say that white people have a culture, then all the anti-whites switch it around and suddenly they break apart the white race into all the various European nationalities. They will insist that there might be a Russian, a French, a Swedish, or an Irish culture, etc., but that there is no white culture. They insist that we are the only race on earth without a culture. Of course they always speak of indigenous culture as if it is all one culture for one race.
Think about European history over the centuries and the corrupt, oppressing, and exploiting of various nationalities of the white race. The British Empire dominated the Irish people. They drove them off of their lands and forced them to travel to the Americas to start a new life and to survive. Most of the white race throughout the centuries were not nobility nor kings nor Queens. They were mostly peasants or financially struggling farmers and trades people. The establishment’s historical narrative treats the situation as if the majority of white peasants conceived the idea in their brains to sail across to the unknown world and then conquer the already established kingdoms of other races in the Americas – simply because they were races which those white peasants considered to be unfit to own the land, and somehow less deserving to live than whites. This is just not accurate. A good example to illustrate just how inaccurate it is, is to look at the British/Irish conflicts over the centuries. One way to look at this is that a British tribe came and conquered the Irish tribe’s land and then forced the Irish tribe to the Americas to look for land to start a life on. And they did find a lot of vacant land in some cases. Vast open areas that were owned by the indigenous in the sense that they would hunt on that land, but there were only small villages with no towns, nor road systems, etc.
It depends on how far we go back in time, and at what exact point in time we decide to start judging land as stolen or not stolen. If one goes back in time far enough, then almost every nation on earth has a history of one group conquering another group in order for that nation to first begin to exist. What is so special about a large body of water such as the Atlantic Ocean in terms of becoming the deciding factor for what is stolen or not? How much settlement and/or how much density of settlers/explorers is required for a land to be classified as “belonging” to the race of the settlers? For example, when the first handful of indigenous people hopped out of their canoe and set foot on the island of Newfoundland or on Vancouver Island, were these entire islands then considered to belong to that race forever? Newfoundland has an area of 109000 square kilometers. Vancouver Island has an area of 32100 square kilometers. Was that first handful of people getting out of a canoe and standing on the beach the defining moment which instantly gave over a hundred thousand kilometers to that race forever. That is not how it happened on the rest of the earth’s surface over the millennia. These Canadian islands are bigger than many European nations are today.
At different points throughout earth’s history, the first explorers set foot in many “new areas”. Yet, vast amounts of Eurasia and Africa remained mostly wilderness for many centuries — AFTER the first people who pitched a tent there made fire, hunted and gathered there, and then moved on to new locations to live. The only difference is that Eurasia and Africa are all connected as one giant land mass. The ocean kept the New World from being settled until thousands of years after the old world began to form the first long lasting and/or permanent nations/kingdoms. But should the rules change for establishing ownership of large areas of land simply because an ocean was crossed to get to that land? What makes sail boat exploration different from on-foot or horse-back exploration? There are archeological findings of very very old Caucasian skeletons buried in the Americas. How do we know that the indigenous did not come over across the Bering Strait and kill off some of these early white tribes living in the Americas thousands of years ago? We know even from official orthodox history that the Vikings were violently chased out of Newfoundland by the indigenous. It seems like there is a unique rule created by the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean, which states that whoever sets foot on a continent first, then owns the entire continent. Going by that rule, shouldn’t those early Caucasians have been able to claim the entire continent of North America for white people? What would the rest of the planet look like today if that rule had have been applied over the millennia?
The anti-white progressives say that the Irish have their own culture and the Polish their own and the French their own, etc., but not white people as a whole. They don’t like for white people to feel united and to think of all Europeans as belonging to one race and culture. Yet they hypocritically insist on collectively blaming the Irish or Italians or Germans or Finish, or whites from many other non-imperial/non-colonial European nations, for murdering all the indigenous in the Americas and for stealing their land. They blame them for slavery too, as well as for any other colonial crimes. Yet white people from these non-imperial, empire-less white nations have no history of conflict with indigenous people. Anti-whites also seldom blame specifically the English or the French or the Dutch or the Danish monarchies/Empires for conquering non-white people in Africa and the Americas. Instead they most often state it as “the white man” being responsible for conquering these people when seeking to identify a culprit. It’s funny how they don’t mind grouping us as one race for those situations.
The Old World was first explored many thousands of years ago, and the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans merely interrupted the human exploration process. Over the last 3000 years much of it began to be permanently settled in large enough numbers to see actual civilization, instead of just nomadic wandering hunters and gatherers. The oceans made the New World different. But without the oceans, explorers of all races, including the Negroids of Africa, would have gradually, bit by bit, began to settle and build settlements in the New World. Without the Ocean, Europeans and Africans would have continued on foot or on horseback to ride/walk westward into the new land. The same thing applies to the Asians, i.e., the Mongoloid race. Without the Pacific Ocean, groups of them in the Far East would have kept walking eastward as gatherers and hunters, farther and farther east into the New World.
Back when North and South America was first being explored/conquered by Europeans, human beings were still living in the time when empires and conquerors of ALL races were conquering and establishing rule over previously free people. Territorial wars were constantly taking place back then, including in Europe, where there were practically no nonwhites. It was an accepted norm of the times. Today we have the United Nations and a set of international rules of conduct which govern all races. These rules will cause the entire planet to push back against any nation who tries to conquer another. But what about the indigenous home of the Caucasian race, known as Europe? While that is being conquered by mass immigration, the UN cheers for more and faster conquering, instead of speaking out against it.
I look at this topic in the following way:
I see 3 main breeds/races/categories of the human species. They are Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. The international media, Academia, and Hollywood constantly promote the narrative that Mongoloids and Negroids have always been attacked and dispossessed of their lands by the Caucasoids throughout earth’s history. They promote the narrative that Mongoloids and Negroids must always remain on the defense everywhere on the planet because of attacks, interference, influence, exploitation, etc., from Caucasoids. They even suggest in a racist manner that there is something innate in the psychology/biology of Caucasoids (which Caucasoids are born with) that makes Caucasoids have a greater tendency to conquer their neighbors than do other races. But let’s take a look at what share of the planet’s inhabitable land is owned by each race. The anti-whites treat all the different ethnicities of the white race as one race when it comes to blaming whites for conquering nonwhites historically. So, if they were to remain consistent with that view and apply it to the ethnicities of the other 2 races of humans, then a very different picture of earth confronts the observer.
Certain groups of Mongoloids left Asia many centuries ago and travelled across the Bering Straight into the New World. Mongoloids already owned all of Asia though. It is quite possible and plausible that they had had violent clashes with some groups of Caucasoids in the distant ancient past, which drove those Caucasoids farther west and northward, forcing them to settle in Europe instead. Various ethnicities of Asians violently conquered other Asian ethnicities in the past to establish the modern Mongoloid nations/empires/kingdoms in Asia. Asia is a huge section of the earth’s surface that the Mongoloids have claimed as their own. The Negroids already own most of Africa and this is a huge section of the earth. Parts of Northern Africa that are not entirely owned by Negroids seem to be populated today with a mixed race created by Mongoloids and/or Caucasoids mixing and reproducing with Negroids. But most of Africa is owned by the Negroids.
Basically, there was a power struggle and a race/competition in the past. It was a race to see which human race could make the New World part of their new conquered territory first. The Caucasoids already owned Europe and the Mongoloids already owned Asia, and groups from both races tried to branch off from their home territory and expand into the New World. We do not know which group was first to set foot on the New World, nor which group set up the first ever homestead, such as a small group or an extended family living in some tents or other primitive shelters. For all we know, Mongoloids from Asia might have violently conquered and killed off early ancient Caucasian settlers in the New World. Just because the Mongoloids built up larger numbers of people in the New World before Caucasians did, does that mean they can claim ownership of the entire New World forever? Think back to my earlier references to the way the entire world was in the past. At various times in the past the world was conquered and reconquered, before the modern nation states were formed and established. When large numbers of the Caucasoid tribe came to the New World in ships from Europe, the earth was still in the conquer-and-reconquer stage. That was the accepted norm of that time. Why does crossing an ocean in a boat, instead of walking across land on foot, change the rules and/or change the accepted norm of that era?
If one considers that half of both Russia and Canada (the two largest nations on earth) is too cold for most people to want to live there, then Caucasoids do not own significantly more habitable land than what Mongoloids and Negroids own.
In 1999, the Canadian government gave a gigantic chunk of land to the Inuit to self-govern themselves in what is sort of like their own country/nation. It is called Nunavut. It gives the indigenous Inuit people perhaps 50 times more land per capita than what Canadian citizens of other races get to have. I would also be supportive of doing the same for the other groups of Mongoloids who currently live on reserves in Canada, such as the Neskantaga Indian Reserve. We could carve out larger chunks of land in less populated areas in all the provinces of Canada (except in P.E.I – too small) and let indigenous Mongoloids govern their own nation.
Author
