By Melody Johnson
Listen (the "better warriors" comment occurs around the 3:33 mark):
RICHARD: We were not invited here by the Native Americans. We were not invited here by the American Indians.
KOBYLT: But they didn't own it, they didn't have formalized ownership.
KOBYLT: It was free land. Anybody who came got it.
RICHARD: Because they weren't good business men, right? When we offered--in 1854 we offered $150,000 to buy 2.2 million--
KOBYLT: I don't think we're going to undo that deal. I'm just talking about the now. I'm talking about the now in that--
RICHARD: You think the Native Americans should have been better business men. Clever, right?
KOBYLT: Probably better warriors.
CHIAMPOU: We've gotta take a break. Good talking with you.
Inflammatory rhetoric is nothing new on The John & Ken Show. On September 1, the hosts aired the personal cell phone number of Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA) activist Jorge-Mario Cabrera, who received hundreds of threatening calls as a result. The hosts denied responsibility, stating repeatedly that Cabrera's phone number was part of a press release, and therefore public information.
Clear Channel, KFI's parent company, later wrote a letter to National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC) president Alex Nogales defending the hosts' actions.
Apparently "John" thinks every country has a document somewhere that gives it legal title to the land according to international law. In the US's case, what and where is this document? I haven't seen or heard of it.
And please do not say the Declaration of the Independence or the US Constitution. Those don't make any claims about ownership of America's present territory. Nor were they ratified before a legitimate international forum.
A few national governments may have a document specifying their legal boundaries and stating that they own the land within those boundaries. But I'm guessing the vast majority don't. They're squatting on their land because of historical conventions and precedents, not because of a legal right.
So according to Kobylt, Al Qaeda or a band of Indians could overthrow the US government and claim the country's territory. Why? Because there's still no legal proof of ownership. The Indians didn't have such proof and neither does the US.
Kobylt's position is pure sophistry, of course. Euro-Americans recognized Indians as the rightful owners of the land from the beginning. That's why they signed 400 treaties, dumbass: to acquire rights to that land. The Indians owned the rights and the white men had to obtain them legally.
For more on the subject, see Indians Owned the United States.
White men were "better warriors"?
The other claim is almost as stupid. Euro-Americans have stereotypes Indians as nothing but the most savage, fearless, ruthless killing machines in existence. Few if anyone wanted to meet an Indian one on one. But now, suddenly, the Indians were inferior warriors?!
I think what Kobylt meant is that the white men had superior numbers, not superior skills. And that the Indians fought them to a standstill despite their disadvantages. Indeed, if it hadn't been for diseases decimating half or two-thirds of most tribes, the Indians undoubtedly would've kicked the white man's butt.
When they did fight to a standstill, that's when they signed the aforementioned treaties. You know, the legally binding treaties that the white men broke--every single one. The Euro-Americans ultimately won because they were better liars and cheaters, not better fighters.
Because Indians were honest, they assumed white men were also--a big mistake. It took them too long to learn the true nature of their opponents. We now know that the white, Christian Western Civilization is an edifice of lies and hypocrisies. Love thy neighbor in theory, conquer him in reality.
For more on the subject, see Europeans Hated Indians' Virtues and Ayn Rand, Racist.