I've just read an idiotic reader throw that inane "go back to Yurp" line to the VDARE staff. Here are four arguments you can make to counter this stupid, stupid, slogan.
If communal territory was all that was needed for a country, we end up with the absurd idea that, for instance, the Kung Bushmen — a primitive hunter/gatherer tribe in Africa that live in the Kalahari — constitute a "country."
America is not just "sand." It is everything that the "Yurpeens" have built there. If that fellow is so disgusted by everything European, he should — by implication — be ready to waive any and every entitlement, no matter how minute, to utilizing, or holding in possession or as property, all the amenities that ensue from that European civilization. That means, he, the disgusted patriotic Indian that he is, will not be using even a public toilet, let alone the roads, hospitals, schools, commercial enterprises, etc.
In other words, we expect him to be consistent in his words and deeds, and go build a tent in the middle of the Mojave desert with his community, and live there without receiving any help from the evil Europeans.
Indian is a funny moniker. It is absurd to claim that because these people are "natives" of this or that region in the continental piece of land stretching from the Bering Strait down to Patagonia, they are entitled to every acre, every yard of it. What nonsense. Since when is a descendent of the Maya, for instance, entitled to a piece of land that used to be the hunting grounds of, say, the Sioux? These tribes had no notion of "private" property as understood by the evil Europeans, and if a Mayan had the temerity to enter the "territory" of the "Apache," they'd do the "diversitarian" act of tying him to a pole, skinning his head as they tortured him with arrows and knives, and then burnt him alive. If that fellow feels "entitled" to any piece of America simply because he has the facial features of a Mayan or an Aztec, and — paradoxically — the name and surname of a Catholic European, he should settle the "property" score with the "native" tribes of North America first.
Finally, since when is a piece of land yours simply because you happen to wander parts of it now and then? I walk the streets of Istanbul, but I don’t suffer from the delusion that I own them. A wolf that lives in a forest does not "own" the forest. You see, "private ownership" is a norm observed by only "civilized" peoples, like the Europeans, and savage "Indians" have not been recorded to observe it. And that norm tells us that if a piece of property is legally owned by Joe or Peter now, no outsider can just walk in and claim it as his simply because his ancestors used to live in the ten thousand-mile vicinity.
There is one more, typically "leftie" inconsistency in his tone: he speaks with the mindset of a thug: "we're more crowded than you, so we'll beat the hell out of you." Well, if he considers use of force as a legitimate means to take over property, then what the hell is his issue with evil Europeans taking over land that was allegedly theirs?
This reader has written previous letters to VDARE.com here and here.