so they have to exploit the shit out of all of it to own it?

I'm saying that 100% of the land wasn't owned by natives

couldnt they let nature be?

you have to exploit land to own it?

idk why you keep saying exploit, is building roads and buildings really exploiting land

it literally is exploiting it

Technically, the natives still own land under trust with the Federal Government of the United States, hence why the Bureau of Indian Affairs and reservations exist.

wait

so did natives

exploit land

dunno, does it matter?

you brought it up LOL

they built canoes and huts and shit so yeah

they did

whats your point

like you said, they didnt exploit all of it

YOU brought up EXPLOITATION

cuz they understand the importance of nature

they believed what i believe, land isnt owned by anyone

no one was shoved out a vagene with the divine right to own the land

but

they had clear concepts of land ownership

nah they didnt

tribes fought over hunting territories

you had full scale empires

with clear land ownership

lions fight for territory too

natives weren't ancoms

whats your point

is this going back to might = right?

why're you comparing natives to animals

I'm not on either side of this argument, but the Iroquois Confederacy basically centralised due to European arrival, so they had basic concepts of land property and acquisition and a need to represent themselves politically.

I haven't even made the point of might=right, you just go off tangents

cuz some of their behaviors such as tribalism and territorialism are animal like

oof

thats why i can make the comparison

alexei's animal-like too

<:coolpepe:471698334877351966>

lol

im not saying the natives were perfect

im saying your argument of ownership of land based on exploitation makes no frikcing sense