What I'm trying to say is you have a very one-sided view of history. You've already decided that the purpose of militias was to "kill Indians". You didn't back

What I'm trying to say is you have a very one-sided view of history. You've already decided that the purpose of militias was to "kill Indians". You didn't back that up at all. Militias had offensive/defensive use against other colonial powers, but they also could have (but didn't always have) purely defensive use against native raids, which were not uncommon (nor were they the other way around). You've also decided that that all land was "indigenous" when nobody has ever owned land, it's always been what group takes it. The natives often took the land from each other. You've decided that's different from European settlers doing it purely based on race. You're making a racial distinction without admitting this is just what people do. The plains weren't Apache land in 1500, why was it their land 200 years later after they'd kicked out other natives? Why was Mexico City Aztec land when they killed off the groups which originally owned it? Much land was loosely populated anyway, both groups could have coexisted but they did not. Killing "squatters" is just justifying the same militarism you despise. Do you see what I'm trying to say? I don't deny atrocities against the natives, those are well-documented, but if you're you're going to talk about history, talk about how it was, not about how a 21st century view of race/society sees it. It's dishonest to those people and who they were.