Anonymous #1 10w

If the mass majority of the country requires Native American land in order to grow crops to survive and tap their underground water tables, would you be for or against that for greater society?

1

Anonymous __joker__ 10w

For or against what? The mass displacement of native Americans?

1

Anonymous #1 10w

If the land is required to feed and support more people. Yes. That is the question I’m asking you.

1

Anonymous __joker__ 10w

Sassy sassy, I just wanted clarification because your question was unclear

1

Anonymous #1 10w

But idk about that one because the land isn’t required to feed us, there’s plenty of land that’s totally wasted. We could leave large parts of the country to native Americans and still have plenty of land to farm on, especially today. But maybe that’s not the point you’re trying to get at? Lmk if that answered your question or not

2

Anonymous #1 10w

I’m trying to see if consistency holds with your logic. The concept of the hypothetical is that the land and the water tables are required, not if there is land or water else where. We could say that there is land and water else where, but they would just be owned by a different nationality or ethnic group like Mexico, China, Japan, etc. The “who” doesn’t matter here, it’s that they’re a minority and they hold a resource that more people can benefit from if it’s taken as opposed to be kept.

1