I’d say Europeans did enough to call it even :)
I dont lose sleep over it but comparing what they did to other to what was done to them is a reach.
People fight wars and one side wins.
The Indians lost the war that decided control of a good portion of a continent.
No reparations of course but but I don’t think it was the indians that started the fightin :)
Indians participated in the war that decided control of a larger part of the continent (Canada), and they live all over that country now - though I don’t know they are any better off. This is just feel-good nonsense; as with pre-colonial Africa, North America had no schools, hospitals, etc. - and a life expectancy of maybe 30?
You need to think about this again. You are assuming that the settlers just came in and took over the land with no regard for the occupants.
That simply is not true. The people who came here to Virginia were murdered, wiped out to the man, to every person, even afer making deals with the natives. When their sponsors sailed back to find them, they were just gone and i think never found again.
When the Pilgrims came in 1620, they negotiated with the "occupants" to buy land. But these tribes were in trouble with each other. They had no consistent system of laws to govern themselves, and after they became dissatisfied with the colonists, they tried to take the land back by brute force, with the emphasis on 'brute', not by tough negotiation. Their only way to deal was "might makes right." and that concept never ceased in all the history of the shaping of the Americas.
Where do you think we got the phrase "Indian giving" from, eh? Who do you think got the "French-and-Indian War" going? The French supplied arms and motivation to take advantage of the murderous ways that the tribes had been dealing with each other for a thousand years, to kill the frontiersmen whose staking out of farms and villages in orderly purchase with transferring of titles and ownership was contrary to the Indian ways..
Then shortly after, the British paid scalp money to the Iriquois tribes, who were both eager and very willing to accept rewards for what they were doing anyway, in attacking the residents who were rejecting the British lordship/serfdom system..
So how this worked out was that there was therefore no reason for the settlers not to flood in, conquer the land, organize a civil society, eliminate murderers, and bring law and peace with them.
What they did was much more reasonable than that which the barbarians did to civilized society in Europe, that resulted in the "Dark Ages."
As I said, I don't buy your argument at all. The concept of "Manifest Destiny" was the only way such barbarians could be brought under control. They would not permit any other changes to individual ownership vs commonly occupied land whose boundaries were constantly shifting.
I lived in New York State, near reservations there, where I observed how they conducted themselves when they had no interference from European philosophy to bridle their behavior. I knew some of these people personally.
Your line of thinking on this is an utter fantasy one only finds in agitator handbooks. IMHO. Sorry to disappoint you, but I cannot help but disagree.