they claimed no right to the land other than the immediate use of it

which they didnt claim right they just told people to fuck off

from tribal lingo to spears

which means they didnt own it

and they aren't natives

because they didn't originate here

they nearly all were because a certain area cannot continuously yield

surely you understand that

and eventually they were gathered and sequestered like the savage animals they were

And they had all kinds of different ethnic features and cultures so they cannot collectively own it because there was very negligent unity if any

That's like saying all the ethnic groups in europe own europe collectively meaning they were the only people there

The injuns had no right to the land and vehemently refused to set up a governmental system because they were tribal grunts

Caucasian is literally an improper term

the Incans, Mayans and Aztecs had governments and the Spanish raped them

it's war

but nomadic asia noogs are not natives and do not own the land or claim right to it

meaning any *status quo ante bellum* you try to offer means nothing because the US claims the land for the US and will paginate it as such within its endless forms and enumerate it with the same structure of laws and so on

American Ethnicity = AMERICAN

rightful american ethnicity is white

why would there be a rightful american ethnicity

what does that even mean

Yes.

Replaced it with their own identity actually.

And stolen is a bad term to use. They conquered it and kept it, Native Americans would have done the same thing.

They weren't saints.

That was the era it happened in.

Actually Native Americans had been fighting each other and killing each other there for thousands of years.

What makes you say that?

Tribal societies engage in internecine warfare more and have higher casualty rates.

So yes.

The "noble savage" is a myth, and it's acknowledged as a myth by historians. Do not believe any lie that the Native Americans were peaceful, they were warlike just like Europeans except they didn't have the better weapons.

Anthropological studies compare tribal societies to national societies and every time tribal societies are more violent.

Correct.

Not an uncommon theme.

No, let's focus on the statement you just made.

Are you implying that historiography now is defined by reports Europeans made?

Took you a long time to say something that's factually incorrect.

If you look though history when it's retroactively analyzed it isn't written by the victors.

If you honestly think that historians solely base their claims on what Europeans said rather than the factual circumstances of what happened you're deluded. Even at the time Europeans knew other Europeans were attacking and slaughtering natives.

The conflict of interest was between countries who had the secular desire to exploit them and the Papacy that consistently argued against their enslavement.

If history is always written by the victors then why do most people think the natives were peaceful and got slaughtered by evil Europeans?