"We Didn’t Kill Enough Indians." Ann Coulter’s Genocidal Wish

But if the Indians had stopped more colonizers, maybe we wouldn’t have to listen to racists like her.

“We didn’t kill enough Indians.”

Those are the words of the racist right-wing commentator Ann Coulter, who wears her hatred like cheap foundation caked over her gaunt mummified face.

Her words were clear, deliberate, genocidal. And she didn’t flinch.

She was arrogant enough to tell the truth about what this country has always wanted: a continent emptied of Native people so white settlers could claim it all without guilt or resistance. Because Indigenous people’s presence is living evidence of the lies America likes to tell about its innocence, its “manifest destiny,” and the blood it spilled to exist.

Coulter posted the now-deleted remark on X in response to a video of Diné scholar Dr. Melanie Yazzie discussing the legacy of colonization in the U.S., turning a serious conversation about Native history into an explicit call for genocide. This is the same person who once insisted she’s “native” because she’s descended from settlers, a perfect example of how she whitewashes genocide and claims belonging through the language of conquest, twisting history to justify exclusion and erase the people whose land was stolen.

And let’s be clear about what Yazzie was actually saying in the clip Ann Coulter chose to answer with genocidal hate. Yazzie described both Israel and the United States as “predator empires” that must be dismantled, not because she hates white people or Jews for existing, but because these states were built and sustained through colonization, dispossession, and violence. She was making a sober argument about empires built on stolen land, genocide, forced displacement, and the ongoing extraction of life and resources.

Calling the U.S. and Israel predator empires isn’t some unhinged insult. It’s a historically grounded indictment of systems that wiped out Indigenous nations, violated treaties, stole land, sterilized Native women without consent, kidnapped children into boarding schools, displaced Palestinians, and used overwhelming military force to suppress resistance.

What else do you call states that maintain apartheid walls, bomb refugee camps, send militarized police onto Native lands to break up pipeline protests, cage migrant children, and bankroll occupations while preaching freedom and democracy?

Dismantling those predator empires doesn’t mean erasing people. It means dismantling the systems built to privilege some by destroying others. It means ending colonial structures that treat land, water, and human life as disposable.

That was Yazzie’s argument: a call for honest reckoning, decolonization, justice, and a new relationship to land and the people on it.

Coulter’s response to that argument? We should have killed more.

That’s it. That’s her entire rebuttal.

That wasn’t some provocative hot take. It’s the snarling confession that she doesn’t want justice, truth, or change. She wants total annihilation. She’s not afraid of being called racist. She’s proud to say the quiet part loud.

Because to Coulter, and people like her, the real mistake wasn’t the genocide. The mistake was stopping short. The mistake was leaving survivors who can still tell the truth, still demand their land back, still threaten the lie that America was ever empty or innocent.

Her words are the purest distillation of settler-colonial logic: if you can’t silence them, kill them. If you can’t erase the truth, erase the people who hold it.

This country tried to kill all the Indians. Through smallpox blankets, forced marches like the Trail of Tears, massacres at Sand Creek and Wounded Knee, and boarding schools designed to strip away language, culture, and life itself. And despite all that violence, Indigenous people survived. That’s what infuriates Coulter: the fact that they’re still here, demanding land back, telling the truth, refusing to vanish.

And she’s not alone. This is mainstream in white America. It’s the same genocidal impulse that leads to Texas governors calling immigration an “invasion,” Trump describing immigrants as “animals,” or Florida politicians bragging about shooting suspected “cartel members” dead without trial. It’s the same rot that led a Texas law student to win an award for writing a paper arguing Border Patrol should have shoot-to-kill orders at the border.

Coulter isn’t some lone crank shouting into the void. She’s the carefully made-up, camera-ready face of a death wish this country has never shaken. She’s the woman who said “illegals” should be shot at the border to send a message to others about crossing illegally.

She didn’t say “we didn’t kill enough Indians” because she lost control or made some edgy joke that went too far. She said it because cruelty is the point.

Coulter has built her career on sadistic provocation. She knows that voicing genocidal fantasies isn’t just about shocking people. It’s about rallying those who secretly agree. It’s about giving permission to hate openly.

When she sneers about killing Indigenous people or shooting immigrants, she’s offering catharsis for people who feel threatened by Native survival, sovereignty, and truth. This is the psychology of domination: to laugh about annihilation, to make genocide seem like a punchline, to reduce entire nations to a regrettable “unfinished business.” She’s reminding her audience that in her world, the only good Indian is a dead one, and she wants them to find that idea thrilling.

And let’s be real: there are plenty of us on the other side of the color line who have flipped that fantasy around. Who have sat with history and wondered—what if the Indians had killed more colonizers? What if they’d stopped them cold on those beaches and in those forests? What if they had driven them back into the ocean before they built forts, before they cut deals, before they brought enslaved Africans here in chains?

What kind of place would this be if the colonizers had lost?

Maybe there would have been sovereign nations spanning the continent instead of reservations carved out of the worst land. Maybe hundreds of languages would still be spoken freely, not archived by anthropologists as “extinct.” Maybe the children who survived wouldn’t have been kidnapped into boarding schools to be beaten for speaking their own words, or forced into foster systems to have their culture erased.

And maybe Black people wouldn’t have been dragged here at all. Maybe there would have been no Middle Passage to the Americas. No auction blocks. No plantations. No generations of stolen labor and broken families. No white wealth built on Black bodies.

Because that’s the truth Ann Coulter can’t stand to face: if Indigenous people had stopped the colonizers, they wouldn’t have been monsters. No, they would have been heroes. They would have prevented centuries of genocide, slavery, land theft, and racial caste.

If more Indigenous people had killed more colonizers, it wouldn’t have been cruelty. It would have been self-defense. It might have spared generations of pain. It might have left us with sovereign nations intact, languages alive, children growing up in their own cultures with their own stories, and an entire hemisphere free from the rot of white supremacy.

Hell, if they’d killed enough colonizers, maybe we wouldn’t have to listen to evil degenerates like Ann Coulter at all.

This is what America needs to see clearly. Coulter’s words aren’t an aberration. They’re a window. A country that never repented for genocide still breeds people who fantasize about finishing it. And the rest of us need to stop pretending they don’t mean it.

If you found this piece valuable, consider becoming a paid subscriber. Your $8 a month subscription helps fund opportunities for HBCU journalism students and invests in the next generation of storytellers.