Don’t Fall for the “Indian First” Line
By John Vinson
A rhetorical cheap shot that mass immigration advocates and other anti-Americans love to fling is that “only American Indians have the right to control immigration.” This line derives from their notion that America has no moral standing because it is a “land stolen from the Indians.”
The snappy punch of this claim hides its lack of substance. To illustrate, if immigrationists truly believe that all American land today is rightfully Indian land, then they should cease advocating immigration. After all, more people coming here will increase the number of “thieves” who are stealing Indian land! More immigrants certainly will reduce the percentage of Indians in our population even more. And growing numbers of people from countries with no connection to American Indians will erode the present esteem and sympathy that most modern Americans have for Indians.
Also, if the cheap shot immigrations are really sincere, the non-Indians among should sell all of their property here, give the proceeds to Indians, and move back to Europe, or wherever their ancestors came from. As few if any have ever done so, their sincerity is certainly suspect. In truth, their professed love for Indians seems more like a ploy to hide their deep and abiding hatred of America.
These points aside, the charge that America was “stolen” ignores historical complexity. In many cases, European settlers occupied land not controlled by anyone on a vast continent thinly populated by Indian tribes. In many instances, Indians ceded and sold land they controlled to the settlers.
Stating these facts is not to suggest that thefts and injustices did not take place. They did. But this is scarcely an argument to deny the legitimacy of the modern American state, and the right of her citizens (Indians included) to set immigration policy as they so choose. That denial does nothing to right historic wrongs, but certainly it will promote future wrongs by courting anarchy and chaos as we lose faith in our laws and institutions.
A final, and significant, point to consider is whether the Indians were—in fact— the first settlers in what is now the United States. Since the 1990s, a growing body of research suggests that in many parts of the country, people of European extraction may have arrived first. Skeletal remains, such as the “Kennewick man” found in Washington state, have Caucasian features and appear to pre-date Indian settlement. Arrowheads found at various North American sites bear an uncanny resemblance to those of the pre-historic Solutrean people who lived in what is now France and Spain. Genetic research also has detected DNA from Europe among some groups of Indians pre-dating the arrival of Columbus.
“The evidence is mounting,” said forensic anthropologist James C. Chatters, “that the earliest North Americans were a distinct people, or perhaps several distinct peoples, who cannot easily be linked to modern American Indians.” A fascinating summary these findings is the video production, Ice Age Columbus, which was aired on the Discovery Channel. With actors, it depicts how parties of Solutreans might have crossed the North Atlantic, less wide than it is today, and settle on this continent. For information to order this video, go to Google on the Internet and type in “Ice Age Columbus.”
Immigrationists will keep using their “Indian first” cheap shot as long as public ignorance allows them to get away with it. Until then, a proper reply to it might be: “Yes, Indians have the right to set immigration policy, along with the rest of their fellow American citizens.