(No idea what the article says - I've apparently reached my article limit)
How on earth can you describe a landmass as stolen or a continent as usurped?
How on earth can you describe a landmass as stolen or a continent as usurped?
Pretty straight forward.
You can do what you like but the continental plate it was performed on wont give a fuck. You could even destroy that continental plate or even the whole shebang but it will still not give a fuck.
Landmasses and continents don't give a fuck - they really don't.
Do you stop at "first to call the area by its modern name" or do you go back through say first hominids?
Perhaps we should go back further, say "recognisable single cell organism"
They didn't kill first
There's some speculation of earlier migrations:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/new-evidence-hu...
In any case, humans had been living here for several thousand years before Columbus arrived 500 years ago. Is it so difficult to see a distinction between millions of people with hundreds of years of history and thousands of people arriving on ships?
(Estimates of the total population vary quite a lot; millions is quite a safe claim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigeno... )