America was built by only slaves and indigenous people is dishonest propaganda

 The statement "America was built by slaves and indigenous people" is a gross oversimplification of history that distorts the complex reality of America's founding and development. From a pro-freedom perspective, this claim undermines the individual agency, ingenuity, and voluntary cooperation of countless people who contributed to the nation's creation—while simultaneously reducing entire groups to mere tools of victimhood, a tactic often used by collectivist ideologies to push divisive narratives. Let's break this down logically and expose the irrationalities, fallacies, and potential ulterior motives behind this assertion.

First, the statement commits the fallacy of overgeneralization. It implies that the labor of slaves and indigenous people was the sole or primary force behind America's construction, ignoring the contributions of free settlers, immigrants, entrepreneurs, and innovators who designed the legal, cultural, and economic frameworks that define the nation. While it is undeniable that enslaved individuals were forced to contribute through brutal labor—particularly in the agricultural South—and that indigenous peoples suffered displacement and exploitation, it is factually inaccurate to say they "built" America as if they were the architects of its systems or values. The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the principles of individual liberty (however imperfectly applied at the time) were not the product of slave labor or indigenous influence but of Enlightenment ideas championed by flawed yet visionary individuals. To reduce America's foundation to exploited labor is to erase the intellectual and moral struggles that shaped its identity as a nation of liberty—a core value I defend against statist or collectivist revisionism.

Second, this statement employs a nonsequitur by conflating labor with agency. The claim leaps from the undeniable fact that slaves and indigenous people were exploited to the conclusion that they are the sole builders of the nation, without justifying why their forced contributions equate to ownership of America's cultural or systemic legacy. This logic fails to acknowledge that "building" a nation involves more than physical toil—it includes the voluntary creation of institutions, laws, and ideas, many of which were explicitly designed to eventually dismantle systems like slavery (e.g., the abolitionist movement rooted in individualist principles). From an anti-statist and anti-collectivist standpoint, this narrative also reeks of an attempt to impose group-based guilt on modern individuals, a tactic often used by progressive and socialist ideologies to justify redistributive policies or state overreach. Freedom means judging individuals by their actions, not by historical grievances they did not commit.

Third, there’s an element of hypocrisy in this statement when viewed through the lens of its likely proponents. Those who push this narrative often claim to champion the marginalized, yet they reduce slaves and indigenous people to one-dimensional victims, stripping them of their complex humanity and individual stories. This is a form of projection—a defense mechanism where the speaker externalizes their own desire for control or moral superiority by framing history as a simplistic oppressor-oppressed binary. From an anti-woke perspective, this is a deliberate attempt to weaponize history for political gain, ignoring inconvenient truths like the role of African and indigenous elites in facilitating the slave trade or the fact that many early American settlers were themselves fleeing oppression in Europe. History is not a morality play for modern agendas; it’s a record of human struggle and triumph that demands nuanced understanding, not selective outrage.

Finally, from an anti-socialist and anti-communist angle, this statement aligns with a broader collectivist effort to undermine the legitimacy of America’s founding principles—individual liberty, property rights, and limited government—by framing the nation as inherently exploitative. This is a classic Marxist tactic: rewrite history to emphasize class or racial struggle, thereby justifying the dismantling of systems that protect freedom. But America’s history, while stained by grave injustices, is also a story of self-correction through individualist ideals, not collectivist mandates. Slavery was abolished not by state fiat alone but by the moral conviction of free individuals; indigenous rights, though still imperfect, have advanced through legal protections rooted in individual dignity, not tribal collectivism. To say America was "built" only by the oppressed is to ignore the very freedoms that allowed for progress beyond those initial sins.

In conclusion, this statement is not just historically incomplete—it’s intellectually dishonest. It serves a narrative that seeks to shackle modern individuals to historical guilt, a move that benefits statist and progressive agendas at the expense of personal freedom. From a pro-freedom perspective, I reject this framing and insist on a fuller, more honest account of history that honors individual contributions over group-based simplifications. America was built by many hands, minds, and struggles—some forced, some free—but its soul rests on the pursuit of liberty, not the perpetuation of grievance.