Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-22-2019, 11:27 AM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,135

The United States was built entirely on Stolen land: Yes or No


I've been seeing this crop up time and time again in various publications and youtube videos I've been watching, and it's irking me as I don't like the concept of North American colonization just being reduced to;

European settlers come to America, see Native Americans, kill them all and take their land, with justification entirely backed up by Locke's state of nature.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARz6kYS12cg

If you watch this video, part of me wants to agree with what he's saying, but I find it lacking.
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #2  
Old 03-22-2019, 11:29 AM
kanicbird is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 19,299
The Louisiana Purchase, and Alaska were bought but yes that was stolen land, just not stolen by the US.

Hawaii would be the only state that qualified as they wanted to join.

Last edited by kanicbird; 03-22-2019 at 11:29 AM.
  #3  
Old 03-22-2019, 11:58 AM
BeagleJesus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
European settlers come to America, see Native Americans, kill them all and take their land, with justification entirely backed up by Locke's state of nature.
I'm quite confident that, from the perspective of a Native American, that is exactly what happened.

This sounds like it's going to be another "white people don't get enough credit" threads...

Last edited by BeagleJesus; 03-22-2019 at 12:02 PM.
  #4  
Old 03-22-2019, 12:11 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 17,648
I mean, yes ? How is it even a debate ? European settlers methodically killed or pushed Natives out of their lands, then promised not to do it again, then broke their treaties. Over and over again, always using "well they're just naked savages while we're civilized" as rationale (because even then "because they can't stop us" wasn't palatable enough). I mean, that's literally what the idea of Manifest Destiny means. I haven't seen anybody dispute that.


It's just that some people think that's still a very good argument to this day and that it justifies systematic usurpation and genocide (both physical and cultural).
__________________
--- ---
I'm not sure how to respond to this, but that's never stopped me before.
  #5  
Old 03-22-2019, 12:14 PM
SenorBeef is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 27,909
I mean, it's semantics. Most land was "stolen" at one point in time or another. There aren't that many places in the world where the inhabitants were the original holders of the land going into pre-history.

The degree to which Europeans deliberately killed Native Americans is probably overstated - almost all of them were wiped out from disease. Upwards of 95%. By the time most of the settlers came to North America, the natives were almost wiped out and it probably seemed to them like they were settling open land rather than forcing natives off of it in most cases.
  #6  
Old 03-22-2019, 12:14 PM
MikeG is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
The Louisiana Purchase, and Alaska were bought but yes that was stolen land, just not stolen by the US.

Hawaii would be the only state that qualified as they wanted to join.

Hmm, cite? Preferably one not written by a plantation owner.
  #7  
Old 03-22-2019, 12:20 PM
ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
The United States was biult entirely on Stolen land:Yes or No
Yes, in a strictly literal sense it's pretty much true. Many Native American tribes signed treaties ceding their land, but in general they were tricked into doing so and often didn't understand the terms of the treaties they were signing. Moreover, the U.S. government would generally break a treaty and grab more land whenever they felt like doing so.

Human history is generally the study of powerful nations/tribes/empires conquering and either subduing or killing off anyone who gets in their way. Among others who stole a lot of land at various times: the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Arabs, the Vikings, the Ottoman Turks, the Mongols, and all the European colonizers. Much of modern-day China could be classified as stolen land. Russia as well. Australia is stolen land. And New Zealand. And basically all of Latin America.
  #8  
Old 03-22-2019, 12:22 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,418
How far do we want to go back with this? Is Istanbul built on stolen land? Is Danzig (Gdansk) built on stolen land? How many of the cities in the United Kingdom that were Roman colonies were built on stolen land? The original inhabitants of what is now Japan were peoples with prehistoric origins from Siberia and the eastern part of what is now Russia - they were an indigenous people who looked more like the Tatars and Cossacks of the Central Asian mainland than the East Asians who eventually displaced them and established a culture and language based on ancient China. Is Japan built on stolen land?

How far back do we want to go with this concept? And how productive is it to actually accomplishing anything?
  #9  
Old 03-22-2019, 12:28 PM
Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,313
The entire history of the Human race is one of migration. If you don't know that, you're completely ignorant of history and facts.

The Vandals were in Poland when the Romans first became aware of them. They migrated to Spain and then to northern Africa (Tunisia, Libya), Sicily and Corsica during Roman times.

The ancestors of the American natives came over the Bering Sea from Siberia.

People move. Even now, groups are still migrating, moving, splitting, etc.

The Lakota/Dakota/Nakota (Sioux) started out in the lower Mississippi and migrated to the Ohio region before moving into Minnesota, Wisconsin and the Dakotas. Then they were pressed south and westward by migrating Ojibwe, who had moved into the region after migrating across the top of the Great Lakes from the east. None of them were 'always' in the areas they were when the white man arrived.

Hell, the Aztecs moved into central Mexico from the north.

In Roman times, several Celtic tribes in what is now Switzerland decided to migrate to northern France. The Romans didn't like this idea, waged war on them, killed many of them and forced them to move back. The Celts bemoaned the idea of being tied to the land - being stuck in one geographic area.


Bad things happened to local peoples every single time someone else decided to move into the neighborhood. They were forced out, they were killed, they were dominated and absorbed. Hell, by the time the Vandals reached Tunisia, probably less than half the "Vandals" were Vandals. They had absorbed and integrated other groups along the way. Just as I'm sure happened many times with various north American groups.


So did European groups 'steal' the land by migrating in? Yes. Is this some unconscionable crime that only European white people are guilty of? Oh hell no. It is a fact of Human existence.

The real question is what we do now, since we cannot change the past.
__________________
Tentatively and lightly dipping my toes back in the water.
  #10  
Old 03-22-2019, 12:30 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,115
I vote "yes", but most other places were built on "stolen land" too. Pretty much every scrap of dirt on earth has been taken from one group by another group with force or the threat of force at some point in history. Canada? Stolen land. Australia? Stolen land. China? Stolen land. England? Stolen land.

ETA: ninja'd by Chimera and Lamoral

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 03-22-2019 at 12:32 PM.
  #11  
Old 03-22-2019, 12:30 PM
Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 13,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post

Hawaii would be the only state that qualified as they wanted to join.
Yeah, not so much. The native Hawaiians were for the most part not particularly interested, which is one of the main reasons why a coup by pro-annexation white planters was successfully launched in 1893( the other was to preserve the elite constitutional status enjoyed by the colonists over the natives that had been established by force several years earlier and that was being threatened with being overturned ). The annexation that proceeded in 1898 was only voluntary in the sense that a bunch of usurping colonists were fully on board with it.
  #12  
Old 03-22-2019, 12:38 PM
AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 20,138
"Well, everyone else was doing it too" is seldom a good defense when the teacher catches you misbehaving. Be that as it may, the conquest of lands was ordinary political behavior over most the planet for millennia, and it remains to be fully established that we now live in a post-conquering era, an era where the nations and cultures of the world have truly agreed that it's bad form to go around taking over other folks' living spaces and resources by force.

Nor was the Era of Conquest preceded by some type of long peaceful era in which peoples owned their land and didn't go around trying to take it from each other. Instead, what preceded it was a world in which people did not own land but instead wandered upon it as hunter-gatherers. The most likely earliest quarrels over land were when population pressured etc caused some groups of our ancestors to take up agriculture, hence giving them a proprietary connection to some specific land and the things growing on it, and then otherancestors of ours, who were still doing the hunting-gathering thing, came over the hill with no concept or recognition of "land that belongs to someone". (They may or may not have been somewhat territorial but their territory was probably wherever they were at the time and had to do with feeling personally safe rather than defending their claims to a parcel of property).
  #13  
Old 03-22-2019, 12:39 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,575
Stolen, conquered... it's not like white Europeans invented the practice, which had been going on in the Americas long before Columbus (or Eric the Red) showed up.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #14  
Old 03-22-2019, 12:41 PM
DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,236
Like 90% of Native Americans died of disease before anyone from Europe showed up in North America. A huge proportion of the land that is now the United States was uninhabited wilderness when colonists arrived. The people who settled that land didn't steal it.

Yes, Americans did kill millions of Indians and steal most of their land, as well as mistreating them in many other ways. But the entire US is stolen? I think that's overstating things a little.
  #15  
Old 03-22-2019, 12:51 PM
Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 17,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHunter3 View Post
Be that as it may, the conquest of lands was ordinary political behavior over most the planet for millennia, and it remains to be fully established that we now live in a post-conquering era, an era where the nations and cultures of the world have truly agreed that it's bad form to go around taking over other folks' living spaces and resources by force.

...
Crimea? Golan?

I'm curious what instances could be identified of ANY groups occupying land where they did not replace prior residents. Other than, perhaps the first folk out of Africa, or the first folk across the Bering Land Bridge. Maybe some small pockets of indigenous folk who have hung on in the Arctic, or the Amazon - to the extent their land has not yet proven worth exploitation by the titular governing state.

When Americans criticize other nations' expansionist efforts, I wonder at the hypocrisy. Are our ancestors' efforts OK simply because they were done long enough ago?

A lot of interesting reading can be done discussing the concerted efforts to paint native Americans as "savages" - thereby justifying early colonial efforts. And early efforts by the Russians in the Aleutians and Alaska are as impressively barbaric as any throughout history.

Quote:
Like 90% of Native Americans died of disease before anyone from Europe showed up in North America.
Where did Native Americans acquire these diseases if not from Europeans showing up in N America?
__________________
I used to be disgusted.
Now I try to be amused.

Last edited by Dinsdale; 03-22-2019 at 12:53 PM.
  #16  
Old 03-22-2019, 01:11 PM
DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
Where did Native Americans acquire these diseases if not from Europeans showing up in N America?
From Europeans showing up in the Caribbean and South America. Once Indians got the diseases, they spread them throughout both continents without any further help from the white man. Populations dwindled and societies collapsed before most colonists arrived to see it happen. Since North America was colonized much later than South America, North America was much more sparsely inhabited when the English and French arrived than South America was when Spain and Portugal arrived. Hence why South America was conquered by conquistadors, while North America was just colonized by settlers.

Last edited by DrCube; 03-22-2019 at 01:12 PM.
  #17  
Old 03-22-2019, 01:19 PM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
Yes, in a strictly literal sense it's pretty much true. Many Native American tribes signed treaties ceding their land, but in general they were tricked into doing so and often didn't understand the terms of the treaties they were signing. Moreover, the U.S. government would generally break a treaty and grab more land whenever they felt like doing so.

Human history is generally the study of powerful nations/tribes/empires conquering and either subduing or killing off anyone who gets in their way. Among others who stole a lot of land at various times: the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Arabs, the Vikings, the Ottoman Turks, the Mongols, and all the European colonizers. Much of modern-day China could be classified as stolen land. Russia as well. Australia is stolen land. And New Zealand. And basically all of Latin America.
This is what my bone of contention is, it's portrayed as purely a European phenomena, where there have been many documented instances throughout history, like the Dai Viet against the Champa for example. I feel that some criticism, whilst all valid, starts to drift into the 'Noble savage' realm.
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.

Last edited by Ryan_Liam; 03-22-2019 at 01:21 PM.
  #18  
Old 03-22-2019, 01:22 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 13,772
Yes, in a certain sense, the U.S. was built on stolen land. But there wasn't a realistic alternative - unless someone feels that Native Americans should have always been permitted to keep all of North America for themselves and themselves only, and that Europeans should have just stayed on their side of the Atlantic.
  #19  
Old 03-22-2019, 01:48 PM
AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 20,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
Crimea? Golan?

I'm curious what instances could be identified of ANY groups occupying land where they did not replace prior residents. ...
I, meanwhile, am curious about why you quoted me and then responded with this. It seems neither to be in direct agreement with me nor in refutation. Bit if a non sequitur overall.
  #20  
Old 03-22-2019, 02:15 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,051
Another sort of similar question surrounds what it means for a people to actually have a claim to land. It is estimated that at the time Columbus landed, there were 10 million natives in what is now the United States. We have about 320 million people here now.

Is 10 million a sufficient number to say that we own all of this land and you people stay away?
  #21  
Old 03-22-2019, 02:24 PM
Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Is 10 million a sufficient number to say that we own all of this land and you people stay away?
Well, I think Canadians, for example, would argue that 37 million is a sufficient number. And even if the Canadian population dropped to 10 million, they would not think that that invalidated their claims to "own all of this land" currently identified as Canadian and retain their sovereignty over it. Even if (or especially if) their far more numerous southern neighbors were getting restless and eyeing their newly-desirable northerly regions in a post-climate-change world.

Last edited by Kimstu; 03-22-2019 at 02:24 PM.
  #22  
Old 03-22-2019, 02:30 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 16,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
The Louisiana Purchase, and Alaska were bought but yes that was stolen land, just not stolen by the US.

Hawaii would be the only state that qualified as they wanted to join.
Riiiight.
The Hawaiian government was overthrown by American plantation owners.
  #23  
Old 03-22-2019, 02:31 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 8,712
It absolutely was, and I can't even see why this question is asked.
  #24  
Old 03-22-2019, 02:32 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 16,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
Like 90% of Native Americans died of disease before anyone from Europe showed up in North America. A huge proportion of the land that is now the United States was uninhabited wilderness when colonists arrived. The people who settled that land didn't steal it.

Yes, Americans did kill millions of Indians and steal most of their land, as well as mistreating them in many other ways. But the entire US is stolen? I think that's overstating things a little.
Before? I think you meant, because.
  #25  
Old 03-22-2019, 02:33 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 8,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post
The entire history of the Human race is one of migration. If you don't know that, you're completely ignorant of history and facts.

The Vandals were in Poland when the Romans first became aware of them. They migrated to Spain and then to northern Africa (Tunisia, Libya), Sicily and Corsica during Roman times.

The ancestors of the American natives came over the Bering Sea from Siberia.

People move. Even now, groups are still migrating, moving, splitting, etc.

The Lakota/Dakota/Nakota (Sioux) started out in the lower Mississippi and migrated to the Ohio region before moving into Minnesota, Wisconsin and the Dakotas. Then they were pressed south and westward by migrating Ojibwe, who had moved into the region after migrating across the top of the Great Lakes from the east. None of them were 'always' in the areas they were when the white man arrived.

Hell, the Aztecs moved into central Mexico from the north.

In Roman times, several Celtic tribes in what is now Switzerland decided to migrate to northern France. The Romans didn't like this idea, waged war on them, killed many of them and forced them to move back. The Celts bemoaned the idea of being tied to the land - being stuck in one geographic area.


Bad things happened to local peoples every single time someone else decided to move into the neighborhood. They were forced out, they were killed, they were dominated and absorbed. Hell, by the time the Vandals reached Tunisia, probably less than half the "Vandals" were Vandals. They had absorbed and integrated other groups along the way. Just as I'm sure happened many times with various north American groups.


So did European groups 'steal' the land by migrating in? Yes. Is this some unconscionable crime that only European white people are guilty of? Oh hell no. It is a fact of Human existence.

The real question is what we do now, since we cannot change the past.
This post is brutally true, but it's a good one.
  #26  
Old 03-22-2019, 02:39 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Well, I think Canadians, for example, would argue that 37 million is a sufficient number. And even if the Canadian population dropped to 10 million, they would not think that that invalidated their claims to "own all of this land" currently identified as Canadian and retain their sovereignty over it. Even if (or especially if) their far more numerous southern neighbors were getting restless and eyeing their newly-desirable northerly regions in a post-climate-change world.
But you see my point. If it was 500 people, I don't think they could seriously claim all of Canada. At some point in time, the question becomes how many people can make a serious claim to how much land.
  #27  
Old 03-22-2019, 02:51 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,109
Lets's assume the answer is yes. Now what?
  #28  
Old 03-22-2019, 03:07 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
Lets's assume the answer is yes. Now what?
Now maybe we can acknowledge that the treatment of the native people and their descendants by the US government and society in general has been abominable, well into modern times, with extremely harmful ramifications on living Americans, and that perhaps we can study doing something to rectify this so that all of these Americans can have a decent chance at a successful, healthy, and happy life.
  #29  
Old 03-22-2019, 03:28 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Now maybe we can acknowledge that the treatment of the native people and their descendants by the US government and society in general has been abominable, well into modern times, with extremely harmful ramifications on living Americans, and that perhaps we can study doing something to rectify this so that all of these Americans can have a decent chance at a successful, healthy, and happy life.
Rectify? How?
  #30  
Old 03-22-2019, 03:29 PM
Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
But you see my point. If it was 500 people, I don't think they could seriously claim all of Canada.
Sure they could, legally speaking, although I agree that for practical reasons they'd need a lot of help from elsewhere. Shit, Mongolia has only about three million people---less than a tenth of Canada's population---and their nation's territory is nearly one-fifth the size of Canada's.

I can't really tell whether you're trying to argue on pragmatic, legal or ethical grounds here. Pragmatically, it's true that throughout history most peoples have not been able to retain control of more territory than they could effectively defend, but that's supposed to be superseded by modern international law and recognition of nation-states.

Legally, the territory recognized as belonging to a nation-state under international law is the territory that that nation-state is entitled to "claim all of", no matter how big or small its population.

Ethically, I think a case can be made that respecting other nations' sovereignty is an ethical as well as a legal thing to do, and other people aren't entitled to just move in on foreign territory because there are more of them than of the foreigners.

You seem AFAICT to be trying to put forth some kind of ethical principle about the desirability of sharing resources, and how people with comparatively more resources should not be considered entitled to keep hogging them all if there are substantial numbers of other people who want to benefit from them too. In which case, how do you feel about "migrant caravans"?
  #31  
Old 03-22-2019, 03:31 PM
BeagleJesus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Yes, in a certain sense, the U.S. was built on stolen land. But there wasn't a realistic alternative - unless someone feels that Native Americans should have always been permitted to keep all of North America for themselves and themselves only, and that Europeans should have just stayed on their side of the Atlantic.
Should Europeans always be permitted to keep all of Europe to themselves and themselves only?

No realistic alternative? I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that the native populations of North America, South America, Central America, the Caribbean, Africa, Australia, India, etc would have been ecstatic if the Europeans would have kept their asses at home and not waged a worldwide campaign of rape, murder, slavery, genocide and colonization. But apparently not wanting your people to be subjugated and your land stolen is “unrealistic” from your point of view.

Last edited by BeagleJesus; 03-22-2019 at 03:32 PM. Reason: Doping on the iPad is hard
  #32  
Old 03-22-2019, 03:31 PM
DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
Before? I think you meant, because.
No, it was before. Besides the expeditions of Ponce De Leon and De Soto, and a small Spanish base in Florida, no European presence was established north of Mexico until around 1600. By then 95% of the native population had already succumbed to disease.

I mean, maybe there was zero contact between Central America, the Caribbean and North America, and De Leon and De Soto's groups infected the entirety of the North American population with European diseases all by themselves, in which case your "because" is technically correct.

Nevertheless, the majority of Dutch, French and English colonies were settled in unoccupied wilderness and didn't steal land from anybody. They went on to march to the Pacific and settle the whole continent over the next couple of centuries, and cause inconceivable harm to Native Americans in the process, I agree. My point is simply that most of the land which makes up the United States today was not stolen from anybody. Much of it was stolen, but nowhere near "entirely".
  #33  
Old 03-22-2019, 03:32 PM
RaftPeople is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 7-Eleven
Posts: 6,494
Yes.

This is the nature of life everywhere at all levels.
  #34  
Old 03-22-2019, 03:33 PM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
Before? I think you meant, because.
No, before. What the Spanish brought with them into Mexico and Central America, ranging from horses to smallpox, spread much more rapidly than the Spanish themselves did. By the time colonists and settlers showed up in the interior of North America, the bulk of the great population decline was already long past.
  #35  
Old 03-22-2019, 03:39 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
I mean, yes ? How is it even a debate ? European settlers methodically killed or pushed Natives out of their lands, then promised not to do it again, then broke their treaties. Over and over again, always using "well they're just naked savages while we're civilized" as rationale (because even then "because they can't stop us" wasn't palatable enough). I mean, that's literally what the idea of Manifest Destiny means. I haven't seen anybody dispute that.


It's just that some people think that's still a very good argument to this day and that it justifies systematic usurpation and genocide (both physical and cultural).
I suppose the debate could be...well, where did the folks who were here when the Europeans first got here get that land from? They probably 'stole' it from some other people, who 'stole' it from some earlier people who, perhaps, 'stole' it from...well, nature. Or something. One has but to look at the various Latin American civilizations (Inca, Aztec, Maya, Olmec, etc) to see this was a continual process of tribes gaining power, dominating their neighbors, pushing them out (destroying them in many cases) re-colonizing and then collapsing or falling pray to the next rising civilization. This happened in North America as well before the European explorations.

So, it's a continual process that is just very human. I don't think this excuses what the Europeans did (I'd be the last to do that), but some context is needed in these sorts of discussions.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!

Last edited by XT; 03-22-2019 at 03:40 PM.
  #36  
Old 03-22-2019, 03:46 PM
Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
No, it was before. Besides the expeditions of Ponce De Leon and De Soto, and a small Spanish base in Florida, no European presence was established north of Mexico until around 1600. By then 95% of the native population had already succumbed to disease.
Do you have a cite for that early date for such a drastic reduction? From what I've seen, it would be reasonable to claim that the North American population had been destroyed to that extent by, say, 1700, but not a full hundred years earlier. Especially if what we're talking about is specifically the territory of the modern United States.
  #37  
Old 03-22-2019, 03:46 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,757
I don't know if native Americans always had the same understanding of "owning" as the Europeans did. I'm thinking more of North America here, but building a farm is fundamentally different from using it as a hunting ground, for a variety of reasons. Whether that makes any moral difference is another question.

Regards,
Shodan
  #38  
Old 03-22-2019, 03:51 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I don't know if native Americans always had the same understanding of "owning" as the Europeans did. I'm thinking more of North America here, but building a farm is fundamentally different from using it as a hunting ground, for a variety of reasons. Whether that makes any moral difference is another question.

Regards,
Shodan
Not all of the North American civilizations were hunter gatherers. Some of them were quite large. That doesn't mean they thought of land ownership in the same way Europeans did, but they were similar to the other pre-Colombian civilizations to the south, even building large complexes and cities with monumental architecture.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #39  
Old 03-22-2019, 03:59 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
Rectify? How?
I don't know exactly, but I think it deserves some study. I don't think it's a coincidence that Native Americans were treated about as abominably as anyone in American history (along with African Americans) and are at the bottom of most statistical health and prosperity indicators. I suspect that there's something we can do that's greater than "nothing" and less than "give them the entire continental US" that might make their chances at a decent and healthy life better.
  #40  
Old 03-22-2019, 04:05 PM
MortSahlFan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: US
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post

The real question is what we do now, since we cannot change the past.
Many people don't seem to mind what is happening in israel... I think history has shown that most people wait until its expedient to take a stance.
  #41  
Old 03-22-2019, 04:12 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I don't know exactly, but I think it deserves some study. I don't think it's a coincidence that Native Americans were treated about as abominably as anyone in American history (along with African Americans) and are at the bottom of most statistical health and prosperity indicators. I suspect that there's something we can do that's greater than "nothing" and less than "give them the entire continental US" that might make their chances at a decent and healthy life better.
Right. You don't know.
  #42  
Old 03-22-2019, 04:19 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
Right. You don't know.
How horrible! Imagine, not knowing something, but thinking it warrants study! Maybe that's beyond your imagination, but to me it seems within the realm of possibility.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #43  
Old 03-22-2019, 04:21 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
How horrible! Imagine, not knowing something, but thinking it warrants study! Maybe that's beyond your imagination, but to me it seems within the realm of possibility.
Give me a dollar value that you are willing to pay every year out of pocket to make this right.
  #44  
Old 03-22-2019, 04:29 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
Give me a dollar value that you are willing to pay every year out of pocket to make this right.
This has nothing to do with my point, but if you want one, I'd happily pay ten grand or so (or more) assuming it was the result of some solid research and hard work that resulted in an achievable long term plan.

But you don't seem to be making an argument that this wouldn't be a reasonable thing to study. Which is all I'm arguing for at this point.
__________________
My new novel Spindown

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 03-22-2019 at 04:29 PM.
  #45  
Old 03-22-2019, 04:33 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
I mean, it's semantics. Most land was "stolen" at one point in time or another. There aren't that many places in the world where the inhabitants were the original holders of the land going into pre-history.

The degree to which Europeans deliberately killed Native Americans is probably overstated - almost all of them were wiped out from disease. Upwards of 95%. By the time most of the settlers came to North America, the natives were almost wiped out and it probably seemed to them like they were settling open land rather than forcing natives off of it in most cases.
Right, and in many cases the land was "purchased" or gotten thru treaty.

But all land has been stolen over and over. The Native Americans fought over lands and hunting grounds, and those changed places time and again.

So, let's say The Heckawi tribe wars with the Huthefukawi tribe, and takes over their land. Then the Spanish come in and takes the land from the Hekawi, then the Mexicans inherit it thru violent revolution, then the Americans buy it (at gun point) from the Mexicans. Who stole what from who?

Most of the gold in circulation has been stolen or looted several times, does than mean anyone who owns is is wrong?
  #46  
Old 03-22-2019, 04:34 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Hmm, cite? Preferably one not written by a plantation owner.
Most of the people born on the island wanted to join.
  #47  
Old 03-22-2019, 04:34 PM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Where the haggis roam fre
Posts: 30,834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
I've been seeing this crop up time and time again .
I didn't bother to watch the video but the word is conquered, not stolen. Just like every other nation - including the American Indian nations.
  #48  
Old 03-22-2019, 04:44 PM
Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
So, let's say The Heckawi tribe wars with the Huthefukawi tribe, and takes over their land.
Uh-huh, because making fun of those silly-sounding gibberish "savage" languages is so witty. Overall, I think relatively boring but less dickish nomenclature such as "Tribe A" and "Tribe B" is preferable.
  #49  
Old 03-22-2019, 04:47 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamerlane View Post
Yeah, not so much. The native Hawaiians were for the most part not particularly interested, which is one of the main reasons why a coup by pro-annexation white planters was successfully launched in 1893( the other was to preserve the elite constitutional status enjoyed by the colonists over the natives that had been established by force several years earlier and that was being threatened with being overturned ). The annexation that proceeded in 1898 was only voluntary in the sense that a bunch of usurping colonists were fully on board with it.
I know, because really only those with brown skin get a choice? A person born on the islands, from parents also born on the islands- they dont get a choice as their skin was white, yes?

Look, the Queen abrogated the Constitution, wanting remove any rights of white people born on the islands, take their land away, and bring back Autocratic rule and the Royal Family owning all the land. Lorrin Thurston led the 'rebellion" against the Queen. He was born on the Island, his parents were born there, and was fluent in the Hawaiian language. Why isnt HE a Hawaiian? Because his skin was white? That's pretty damn racist, as indeed was the Queen. And note, only one single native even raised a hand to try and stop Thurston. The Queen was unpopular, and few wanted a return to autocratic rule by fiat. The educated ones also knew that the American hand was pretty light and loose and that both the Germans and the British had designs. Maybe some would have liked to be Independent, but the educated ones knew that just wasnt happening.
  #50  
Old 03-22-2019, 04:51 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
Like 90% of Native Americans died of disease before anyone from Europe showed up in North America. A huge proportion of the land that is now the United States was uninhabited wilderness when colonists arrived. The people who settled that land didn't steal it.

Yes, Americans did kill millions of Indians and steal most of their land, as well as mistreating them in many other ways. But the entire US is stolen? I think that's overstating things a little.
Millions? Hardly. from wiki: From the U.S. Bureau of the Census in 1894: "The Indian wars under the government of the United States have been more than 40 in number [Over the previous 100 years]. They have cost the lives of about 19,000 white men, women and children, including those killed in individual combats, and the lives of about 30,000 Indians. The actual number of killed and wounded Indians must be very much higher than the given... Fifty percent additional would be a safe estimate..."[52]

Now yes, the relocations killed quite a few- but certainly less than 20,000, possible less than 10,000.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:54 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017