Just to pre-empt where this is going, sure, the Earth was here before all of us. But unlike the Clovis people, First Nations are still here and suffering from what my ancestors did, which is why that leads to misunderstanding when emphasised.
Not that I advocate it, but another way of writing what you just said is, “This whole treaty thing wouldn’t be a problem if we had just gone with full genocide.”
Where my Clovis people at?
Just to pre-empt where this is going, sure, the Earth was here before all of us. But unlike the Clovis people, First Nations are still here and suffering from what my ancestors did, which is why that leads to misunderstanding when emphasised.
deleted by creator
I mean, you can state that, but you haven’t actually supported it. And that’s before you get into the fact our legal system says they do.
Not that I advocate it, but another way of writing what you just said is, “This whole treaty thing wouldn’t be a problem if we had just gone with full genocide.”
I mean, it wouldn’t. It’s just that genocide is bad, so that’s not really preferable, then or now.
When is the last time you heard complaints from the Clovis people?
… I was agreeing with you, there would be no treaty disputes.
Sorry, I misread that.
NP. Me replying to a rephrasing of my own comment is a bit unusual. I probably should have gone a little more long-form for clarity.
13000 years ago. You are off topic.