1. Assuming Amerinds really were the first humans to set foot in the Americas (which is questionable), what gives them the right to claim every last square inch of the entire double-continent whether they were living on it or not, using it or not, watching it or not, and had national boundaries or not?

2. Setting aside the atypical encounters associated with Cortez and Pizarro, what makes you pretend that the usual colonists from Europe would have arrived on the shores of America and chosen obviously occupied land that would likely be highly dangerous to live on and defend as a safe place to build farms and raise families?

3. Since White colonists obviously didn't choose occupied land to build farms and raise families, what makes you side with the Amerinds who started attacking them instead of the Whites who were just trying to build homes and make a better life for themselves? Do you hate diversity? Are you opposed to immigration? (Just looking for some consistency in your ideology.)

4. Whites had the technology to easily kill every last Amerind in less than fifty years. If conquest was their goal, why didn't they do that?

5. If Whites had no intention of respecting the treaties they created with the Amerinds, why did they bother drafting them, signing them, and making the agreements public record? Were they afraid the Amerind's lawyers (which did not exist) would sue them? Were they afraid White liberals of the time would take them to task somehow? Why would they not simply have lied and said that the Amerinds at the treaty-signing had tried to attack them and had to be put down by force?

6. Every baby understands the concept of ownership. How can you possibly be so naive as to excuse the incessant thievery and violent attacks by the Amerinds on land that they had AGREED IN TREATIES WAS NOT THEIRS with the excuse that "they had no concept of ownership"? If you contend that they believed their lands were being invaded, how could they have such a concept as "their lands" if they had no concept of ownership?

7. If Whites were so bent on taking everything that was theirs and committing genocide against them, why did Whites set aside reservations (literally Red-Indian conserves) for them at great expense and inconvenience for themselves instead of simply wiping them out, especially after centuries of war with them during which the Amerinds repeatedly violated the treaties they had agreed to?

8. You are very fond of pointing out the diseases that Whites gave Amerindians. What about the numerous diseases they are known to have given Whites? What about the fact that the plague was started in Europe by Asians launching diseased corpses into a fort that Whites were defending, ultimately causing the deaths of at least a third of Europe? What about the fact that Whites had to first survive every disease that they later spread to the Americas?

9. Why do you not see a problem with your ideology when every known Amerind tribe currently has a rapidly increasing population, while the population of Whites the world over is declining?

10. If you contend that America should go back to the Amerinds, even though they did not build the infrastructure here, do you not also agree then that Amerinds should have to pay Whites for the technology and techniques we have shared with them? Would the value of this surely not greatly exceed the cost to buy the entirety of North and South America several times over? (Multiply the United Nations' estimate for the value of a human life by the number of Amerindian lives our technology has saved and/or made possible, which greatly exceeds the number that died. This estimate neglects compensation for the improvements to the overall length and quality of life that our technology has made possible.)