or would you say these were ordinary people or more the kind of people paying attention to international events? (genuine question).

I get that to an american it's contentious, but imagine not buying a toyota car or samsung phone because the powerful head of that company gave huge amounts to a conservative politician in their country. That's how I look at elon/trump in the us, and given I never hear normal people (not reddit/hackernews/guardian) talking about ANY of this stuff, I'd guess I'm not alone.

is this a serious question? what defines history as a subject is precisely that it is not the present.

This is a wild jump to make. I'm not sure I can take your comment in good faith as being serious.

No that's exactly what it makes it, as their conflicts subtract from those with newer arrivals. Different groups fighting each other, and then other different groups from Europe came, and made allegiances with specific local groups, then collaborated in their conflicts.

It's worth understanding that 'western colonization' wasn't a singular coherent force. There were different foreign groups with different interests - who were fighting with each other in North America.

Similarly there were 'Native Americans' (quotes as this is a colonial term) pursuing their own interests, even going to Europe. I'm not sure it's your perspective but there is a popular historic image of native americans being a defenceless people who foreigners came and wiped out which simply isn't correct, and ironically quite colonial.

> Did tribes fight and war and capture slaves? Yes. They did that for forever.

sounds like you're confused what point you are arguing.

As I learned it, most of the conflicts were between not against. Native Americans, became a term as a general catch all but those peoples saw themselves as quite diverse, and as such is something of a misnomer.

my point exactly.

hence last stage fiat. capitalism / [insert false dichotomy here] is a distraction.

stripping something down to the objective parts isn't that hard for an llm as it's all about language. Sure they can and do have biases, although in this case it's a relative matter, and undoubtably the guardian is well known as left wing (in case somehow it isn't obvious just from looking at this article). So I'd say it's more steps forward than backwards. It's not either or. Removing subjective fluff from such a language is a function of thinking for oneself. using an llm to remove bias doesn't mean you need to then say "ok and now it's 100% objective". I recommend chomsky on the subject, who for instance purposely speaks in monotone so as not to infuse emotion into what he's saying.

enjoy thinking what somebody else decided for you.