"just being there means living off of the wildlife and vegetation that was "just there" instead of utilizing the land to produce sustenance, the process of which augments the value of the land that was just there.
It's really laughable the way you make it sound like hunting and gathering is so easy, as though food is just lying about on the ground for stupid and lazy people to pick up without effort. Those peoples who did and still do practice hunting and gathering
are utilizing the land to produce sustenance. They add value to the land that is relevant to their needs. Thinking that they have to add value to the land relative to the needs of foreigners in order to justify their existence is terribly short-sighted.
I did not deny that some of the previous inhabitants did create permanent communities and enhance the productiveness of the land.
Again, your ignorance of Native American history is transparently obvious. True hunter/gatherer communities were outnumbered by those who practiced agriculture and lived in permanent settlements. You do realize that "America" refers to two entire continents, yes? There were great cities and great empires to be found in pre-Columbian America. The Mississippian culture spread across most of the eastern and midwestern North American continent and featured large towns and cities with thousands of inhabitants. In Central and South America there were great cities and empires with extensive trade routes. In fact, most of the peoples encountered by European settlers early on were living in just these sorts of cultures.
It's too bad that Ayn Rand was too arrogant to actually learn anything about Native American culture prior to making such stupidly wrong assertions such as that they didn't have any concept of property and that they didn't live in settled communities, apparently believing that all of the pre-Columbian Americans were some homogenized stereotype, like a dime-store Indian
Killing the peaceable ones or confiscating their land was the same crime it would be against anyone else.
Again, you seem to have an early 20th century Hollywood concept of Native American history. Violence and slaughter was overwhelmingly practiced by foreign invaders moving to push out indigenous populations. Most recorded cases of violence against settlers follows violence by the settlers against indigenous populations.
But when those that did not tolerate the homesteading of unowned land by the settlers raided their homesteads and killed them, it was they who were the criminals and the settler's rights that were violated.
You just won't let go of this "unowned land" meme. Not to mention the Hollywood image of bloodthirsty savages descending on peaceable settlers and slaughtering them without provocation.
Accusing all settlers and justifying all of the previous inhabitants without distinctions based on what they actually did or did not do and on what is or is not property is a form of bigotry as bad as any other.
Right, I'm the bigot for insisting that Native Americans weren't subhumans who didn't deserve prosperity or happiness because they lived like "animals".
