There was no international law regarding the treatment of the native peoples when Europeans blundered onto the scene in the 16th century. Native concepts of land ownership simply did not compute with the European concept of it.
Since when do we use international law as the basis for whether something is moral or not?
Again, the absence of a law on something does not imply that the act in question is moral. And even if it did, the idea of a 'UN' or international governing body would be ridiculous for a time when few people knew what lied beyond the hills. I fail to see why theft of land cannot be compared to automobile theft in a moral sense. If anything, it's worse than automobile theft. But I can tell you're likely turning this into a weak semantics debate, so why don't you stop before you make an even bigger fool out of yourself?
Nor is it the point. Obviously it's absurd to demonize someone for what their ancestors did hundreds of years ago, but so is your relativist attitude toward what is no different than me breaking into your house, raping your wife, seizing your property, swindling you into giving up everything you may have left, and then forcing you and your neighbors into desolate "reservations," sealing you and your grandchildren in a never-ending spiral of poverty and suffering.
