It's kind of like, I come over to your house for dinner... Murder your family members, and sell you to a slaver, then your house is mine.

Pretty straight forward.

A landmass and a continent: which bit of bloody great chunks of rock, soil, stuff etc are you having problems with?

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.

I wouldn't break it down by landmass. I would break it down by watershed. Watersheds most definitely "give a fuck".

So then "property is theft" is what you're arguing?

Killing the natives?

Who are the "natives"?

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"

Humans are likely the first hominids to occupy the Americas.

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... )

The natives are those that were killed because they opposed to the plans other had for those lands were they lived for centuries

They didn't kill first

Was there some point to this question?