d dinesh, part two, here with us, i suppose. you seem to challenge the theft of america s history. how do you decipher the land grab of native americans. first of all, you have storm, the ethic of conquest, the idea that you get land by grabbing it from someone else has been occurring since the dawn of mankind. we talk about the native americans as a single group, but they re as diverse as the people of europe. when the europeans got here every piece of land that was occupied by a native american describe, that tribe had taken it from some other tribe, like the strong tribes like the apache, navajo and com afternoony had been conquering the pueblo and the hopi. so when the spanish came here they were doing basically the same thing and this was all, by the way, 200 years before america. we condemned christopher columbus in 1492, but america was started in 1776, so the distance between columbus and the founding is about as big as
into this black-white dynamic you re missing most of the points and i think he s off the mark. what do you think about this? what do you think about the framework that says comparatively speaking there were other offenses that we view in the history of the world therefore what america has done is not necessarily as uniquely egregious as one might think. well, that s an interesting argument you could make. my bigger problem is dinesh is want a very good spokesman for what liberalism is and my bigger problem with him and his work and this movie that s part of this is the onslaught of portraying liberalism of what it s not. he painted barack obama and hill reclinton as these monsters of the left who are trying to lead america down a dark path and i don t think that s true and from what i understand i haven t seen the movie. i ve read about it and he certainly gets into that in the movie. i did see it and let me give him a chance to respond.