Is ANY land in this world unstolen? Yes!

Factual Questions
21

[QUOTE=yBeayf]
For a less flippant answer, you need to clarify if you mean the original inhabitants still own their land, or merely reside there. If the latter, then I’d say a goodly part of the Earth still qualifies. [snip]the lands inhabited by the Khoisan [snip]

[/QUOTE]

I can assure you that most of the Khoisan no longer live in their ancestral lands, but have been driven out into marginal lands (the Bushmen(“San”)) or else assimilated/interbred out of existence (The Khoi). Only the Nama, Herero etc. still live where they were before the coming of Europeans, and probably not where they were living before the coming of the Bantu.

22

Manhattan (and many other pieces of American land) were purchased from the local tribe.

23

[QUOTE=yBeayf]
For a less flippant answer, you need to clarify if you mean the original inhabitants still own their land, or merely reside there. If the latter, then I’d say a goodly part of the Earth still qualifies. The indigenous peoples of Siberia and the Arctic, most of South America (where people are by and large still descended at least partly from the original inhabitants), Finland (probably), the Basque lands (I like to think), plenty of Pacific islands, the lands inhabited by the Khoisan and Pygmies of Africa, maybe (parts of) the Dravidian parts of India…

.
[/QUOTE]

Not really. “Primative” tribes fought back and forth over land long before ther were European colonists. For example, there was war and Imperialism in South America for centuries before Columbus, where one tribe would war on another and displace them.

24

(Not asserting. Asking.)

Wouldn’t large chunks of China be applicable? True that originally all the different regions were somewhat their own country, so they were conquered at some point but by modern day standards they’re still all Chinese.

25

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Well, when we find hard proof of there having been there and that the Norse stole the land from them, then we can take Iceland off the list. :slight_smile:
[/QUOTE]

I believe there’s some strong evidence in the sagas that the Norse found the Irish monks already there. However, there are a couple of questions relative to this topic that need answering:

  1. As far as I know, the Irish monks simply wanted a place where they could live and worship in peace, and didn’t claim Iceland for Munster or anything of the sort.

  2. While I have no proof of this, and would be unsurprised to find out it wasn’t true, my impression is that the Norse>Icelanders did not pillage or make war on the Irish monks, just left them alone, claimed the island as a whole, and settled elsewhere to build their steads and farm, fish, sail elsewhere, and what have you.

The monks themselves reacted in two ways: most packed up and went elsewhere, with a “there goes the neighborhood” sort of attitude; some stayed, and eventually died out (no new monks joining the community, and monks being under vows that kept them from reproducing).

Presuming this information to be true, would you consider this as “stealing” in Valteron’s usage? And does anyone know whether that rather idyllic scenario was in fact true, or someone’s propaganda that I bought into?

26

[QUOTE=Sage Rat]
(Not asserting. Asking.)

Wouldn’t large chunks of China be applicable? True that originally all the different regions were somewhat their own country, so they were conquered at some point but by modern day standards they’re still all Chinese.
[/QUOTE]

There is no ethnically homogenous “Chinese” people. Most of the current Han and associated groups come from further north, and pushed out groups that are now marginalised minorities.

27

And…to go down the list of early civilizations:

Egypt is still viewed as being run by Egyptians. Not sure whether the Islamic conquest threw out the people in charge or simply caused them to change their religion…

Greece?

Parts of India/Pakistan?

28

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
There is no ethnically homogenous “Chinese” people. Most of the current Han and associated groups come from further north, and pushed out groups that are now marginalised minorities.
[/QUOTE]

Wouldn’t that mean that Northern China then would still be the original people?

29

Right – I never stated otherwise. But were there already inhabitants on that marginal land when the San were driven there? If not, then they are still the original inhabitants of that land, even if they’re not still in possession of their original land.

Egypt has been conquered so many times, and there have been so many invasions and influxes of new peoples, that I doubt it’s really meaningful to say that the current Egyptians are the same people as the original inhabitants.

30

[QUOTE=Sage Rat]
Wouldn’t that mean that Northern China then would still be the original people?
[/QUOTE]

Possibly - if it wasn’t for those Mongolian invasions. The ethnic Han aren’t the same as the Huaxia people they claim descent from - there’s been too much mixing with both conquered and conquering peoples.

31

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Possibly - if it wasn’t for those Mongolian invasions. The ethnic Han aren’t the same as the Huaxia people they claim descent from - there’s been too much mixing with both conquered and conquering peoples.
[/QUOTE]

Aaargh - I mean “Manchurian” - not that China *wasn’t *invaded by Mongols, but I’m thinking of Manchu rule. And before you ask, Sage, Manchuria is now mostly ethnically Han, apparently, so it doesn’t have its aborigines either.

32

[QUOTE=Valteron]
The Israelis took Israel from the Palestinians who took it when the original Jews were dispersed in 70 C.E.
[/QUOTE]

That’s wrong, and the idea that the creation of Israel in 1948 upended 2000 years of Palestinian history is one of the urban legends that drives the current conflict. The Israeli’s “took” Israel from the British, who took it from the Ottomans (Turks) at the end of World War I, who who took it from Egypt in 1840, who took it from the French in 1799…

Such as Alaska, and the Lousiana purchase. Indian territories east of the Mississippi were ceded to the US at the end of the Revolutionary War. Texas and California eagerly joined the US after winning their independence from Mexico.

But why let facts get in the way of good self-loathing. :wink: Twain’s point was that every bit of land had been fought over countless times. No doubt that will continue long after we’re gone. Imperialism is not a modern invention.

33

[QUOTE=yBeayf]
Right – I never stated otherwise. But were there already inhabitants on that marginal land when the San were driven there? If not, then they are still the original inhabitants of that land, even if they’re not still in possession of their original land.
[/QUOTE]

Don’t know (wouldn’t thinks so, it’s pretty shitty land), but my main point was that the Khoisan as a whole aren’t around to live anywhere. Say “Bushmen” if that’s what you mean, but “Khoisan” means the whole bang-shoot, not its littlest member.

And, FYI, “San” is a pejorative, that’s why I scary-quoted it. Mostly, they prefer “Bushman” or individual tribal names, not an offensive Nama name.

34

A lot of the postings on this thread bring out an interesting question. Where do you draw the line? What constitutes a “group” stealing land from another “group”?

This has more relevance thn you might think to current affairs. We say that the “white man” (as if there were only one group) stole the Americas from “the Indians” again, as if Indians were a single ethnic group.

In Canada, we have many land claims from the Mohawks, who were a member of the six-nations Iroquois Conferederacy. But how much of it is really “their” land?Both recorded history, archeology and oral tradition show that the Mohawks were a very agressive and warlike nation who attacked, wiped out and took over the lands of the Huron, an Algonquian-speaking people who originally inhabited much of what is today Ontario and Quebec. The Mohawks originally lived mainly in what is today the north-eastern US. They were in possession of lands in Canada by the late 1700s, but only because they had seized them from the Huron in wars as cruel, savage and heartless as anything done by the invading Europeans at the time.

It is to the advantage of modern Indians in making their claims to gloss over the fact that the 500 Indian nations that existed here were often as different from each other as say, the Germans were from the Poles when they attacked Poland and began their plan to exterminate its population and make the land theirs. It also explains to a large extent why Indian geoups today are so opposed to archeology. More and more, we are seeing that the native Americans present when the Europeans stole their land were really descendants of succesive waves of either immigration or violent conquest, who may well have stolen the land at some time in prehistory.

Before anyone starts accusing me of racism, let me summarize my position. All I am saying is that aboriginal persons in the Americas formed societies which, LIKE ALL OTHER HUMAN SOCIETIES IN EUROPE, ASIA AND AFRICA, were perfectly capable of agression, greed, imperialism, cruelty and savage conquest of weaker and smaller ethnic groups. No more and no less. They were human beings with all the human vices and virtues.

Modern Indians need no more be personally ashamed than modern Scots need be ashamed that their ancestors tortured and burned witches in record numbers, or than modern Frenchmen need feel guilty for Napoleon’s agressions.

But let us please stop this fundamentally racist, “noble, peaceful Indian vs. cruel and aggressive white man” bullshit. People are people.

35

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Possibly - if it wasn’t for those Mongolian invasions. The ethnic Han aren’t the same as the Huaxia people they claim descent from - there’s been too much mixing with both conquered and conquering peoples.
[/QUOTE]

I wonder to what extent Mongolia itself would qualify? Is there archaeological evidence that indicates the Mongols displaced an earlier culture (rather than evolving from it locally)?

In terms of the OP, what about places that were temporarily under the control of foreigners, but are now independent and ruled by the original indigenes (or at least their cultural successors)? Under those terms, various Pacific island groups might qualify, including Kiribati, Tuvalu, Tonga, Fiji, Nauru, Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau.

36

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
And, FYI, “San” is a pejorative, that’s why I scary-quoted it. Mostly, they prefer “Bushman” or individual tribal names, not an offensive Nama name.
[/QUOTE]

This is rather debatable, given that a San advocacy group in South Africa uses the term themselves.

37

I’d say they had a reasonable claim. They had an international treaty giving them the islands. They had visited Bermuda (prior to the British) and staked a claim, although they didn’t follow through with occupancy. And the British recognized Spanish claims in the Americas to the extent that they tried to avoid Spanish authorities when setting up their colonies.

38

[QUOTE=Colibri]
This is rather debatable, given that a San advocacy group in South Africa uses the term themselves.
[/QUOTE]

There is no term/name for any race that someone somewhere doesn’t find offensive.

39

[QUOTE=Valteron]
Both recorded history, archeology and oral tradition show that the Mohawks were a very agressive and warlike nation who attacked, wiped out and took over the lands of the Huron, an Algonquian-speaking people who originally inhabited much of what is today Ontario and Quebec. The Mohawks originally lived mainly in what is today the north-eastern US. They were in possession of lands in Canada by the late 1700s, but only because they had seized them from the Huron in wars as cruel, savage and heartless as anything done by the invading Europeans at the time.
[/QUOTE]

(Bolding mine.)

Slight correction: the Hurons were an Iroquoian-speaking people, just like the Mohawks (Iroquois). Other than that, I think your post is correct, until the 17th century they were in possession of large territories in North America, which were then seized by the Iroquois in just a few years.

40

[QUOTE=Colibri]
This is rather debatable, given that a San advocacy group in South Africa uses the term themselves.
[/QUOTE]

I’m sure I can find websites where African-americans call themselves “nigger” too, that doesn’t mean it’s not a pejorative.

“San” was initially adopted by people ignorant of its meaning, mistakenly taken for a more PC term by American researchers. But wikipedia actually has the right of it - all the South African “San” I’ve met prefer Bushman (actually, they prefer “Boesman”, being mostly Afrikaans-speaking) or,* more preferably*, their actual tribal names. As a matter of convenience, advocacy groups* have* decided to use the term for the whole group, as it’s become well-known, but this reflect convenience, IMHO, more than any real thought into the matter. That wikipedia article links to this one , which should tell you more than you need to know about the history of things.

If it helps you to know where I’m coming from, I’m part Khoe but not San, and I’ve done geology fieldwork in the Kalahari and Richtersveld in the 90s, and have visited Namaqualand and Namibia since, often speaking to locals.