"not indigenous to africa" Sounds like goalpost moving. And here I thought from your posts that you weren't some kind of faggot. We're not talking about who belongs. We're talking about "what belongs", namely "what belongs to whom." Fact is, like typical animals, these fuckers showed up looking to rape rob and loot, long after the south africans. This isn't an issue of 'who attacked who', or "who is native", it's an issue of property rights and genocide. Edit: God dammit. I'm just pissed. I've always seen the blackpilled response and thought "okay, yeah, might makes right, it's just how the world works", but I don't understand the need to point it out. I guess it might have value in normalizing the notion but I think it probably just demoralizes sane people. It's a net loss. People deprived or killed by our enemies can still do good if we treat them as they should be treated, with the dignity afforded to icons, in the same way the punishment following civil disobedience elevates the cause and movement, instead of blaming them for what was done to them. Victim blaming presumes the victim is at fault for losing, but anyone thats ever been involved in any obstacle, or struggle in life knows, you can put up your best fight and still lose by circumstance or plain bad luck. To shoulder the down trodden with the burden of their loss is adding salt to an open wound, and I find it repugnant, as if to suggest theres no honor in a good fight. And in that case, why fight at all? Why risk anything? You see the defeatism in that outlook? There is dignity and *worthiness* in a righteous cause, and what better cause then the cold outrage of those wrongly put upon. No. Ours? Ours is to try.