# When in human history should reasonable people find a "cut-off" of the right of title by conquering? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 8, 2010, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464 "2010-06-08T19:58:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![\_Undecided\_Adrian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/_/eada6e/32.png) [@\_Undecided\_Adrian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_Undecided_Adrian)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/61 "2010-06-10T13:47:16Z")
The point of the UN is that it shouldn’t be that way any longer. Of course it’s difficult to get a consensus there, but it can happen, and already prevented bad things such as in Bosnia. Other than the Balkans, Europe currently enjoys one of the longest peaceful periods in its history, and it doesn’t look like this will change anytime soon - shouldn’t the world aspire to something similar? Letting go of the Sudetenland is a small price to pay for that. **Alessan** , do you really think it would be preferable not to have the UN, and duke it out with Iran all by yourselves? ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/62 "2010-06-10T13:56:13Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Of course. That is, after all, exactly how domestic laws “work”. > > If you don’t obey the law, a cop comes and arrests you, backed up with the whole force of the state and society. That’s “might”. > > The reason “international law” of war & peace doesn’t work like that is that there is no “cop” who is above the fray. It is more like “law” in a frontier town, relying on one’s armed neighbours to lynch ‘bad guys’ - when the neighbours may (objectively speaking) _be_ the ‘bad guys’. Except that there is no such thing as “above the fray”. You can be sure that the very first order of business of any world sovereign would be to guarantee the continued power of the world sovereign. **Everybody** has a self-interest. And to suppose that some authority could somehow be above that is Utopian in the mocking sense of the word. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/63 "2010-06-10T13:58:03Z")
> [@'\[Undecided](#): > > Adrian;12558706’]The point of the UN is that it shouldn’t be that way any longer. Of course it’s difficult to get a consensus there, but it can happen, and already prevented bad things such as in Bosnia. > Other than the Balkans, Europe currently enjoys one of the longest peaceful periods in its history, and it doesn’t look like this will change anytime soon - shouldn’t the world aspire to something similar? > Letting go of the Sudetenland is a small price to pay for that. > > **Alessan** , do you really think it would be preferable not to have the UN, and duke it out with Iran all by yourselves? The UN isn’t only located in Europe, and is not really responsible for lenghty European peace since WW2. It could be pointed out that Europe enjoyed a similar lengthy period of peace in the 19th century, sans UN, following the Napoleonic/Revolutionary Wars, and that the great powers were similarly interested in the 19th century to prevent, mitigate or contain Balkan violence (ultimately, of course, unsuccessfully - in the 20th century). The various organs of inter-state cooperation in matters of war and peace such as the UN Security Council are, at best, a formalization of the sort of great power concert that has existed in one form or another since there were great powers. The issues that interest them are the same - to avoid clashes that are not in the interests of the powers, particularly those between smaller client states that have the potential to drag the powers in to battles they don’t want. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/64 "2010-06-10T14:03:39Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Except that there is no such thing as “above the fray”. You can be sure that the very first order of business of any world sovereign would be to guarantee the continued power of the world sovereign. **Everybody** has a self-interest. And to suppose that some authority could somehow be above that is Utopian in the mocking sense of the word. How is that different from the domestic national sphere? The first order of business of the state is to stay the state. Yet, in democratic countries at least, the state has legitimacy. Few think of the cops as being nothing more than the oppressive organs of the state to keep itself alive (although in a sense they are). What is needed for a true world sovreign is for an international force to have that sort of widely acknowledged legitimacy - of the same type as that generally enjoyed by domestic forces of a democratic nation. We are nowhere near that yet, and of course it does no good to _pretend_ we are. But I do not regard it as _impossibly utopian_ any more than I regard Western-style democracy as “impossibly utopian”. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/65 "2010-06-10T15:29:45Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > I think the idea of a cut-off date offends me because it sort of assumes that history is something that happened in the past, with rules that don’t apply to the modern world. That’s an incredibly arrogant and utopian point of view. The fact is that history continues whether we want it or not, and the same rules that governed the world a century ago largely govern the world today. Yes, things never change … until they do. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/66 "2010-06-10T15:39:16Z")
… because somebody with the capacity to learn makes them change. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/67 "2010-06-10T16:44:35Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > The last time I checked, sending a Gunboat and some Maxim Guns to deal with recalcitrant native chieftains isn’t considered a viable foreign policy tool anymore. No, we have more modern weapons -see Grenada and see Panama, just on our side. And cue Tom Lehrer’s “Send the Marines” from about 45 years ago. “all their rights respected, until someone we like can be elected.” ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/68 "2010-06-10T20:15:21Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > … because somebody with the capacity to learn makes them change. Sorry, I’m just too cynical. Whenever there are human beings there will be tribes, and whenever there are tribes there will be bloodshed. So it ever was, so it ever shall be. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/69 "2010-06-10T20:21:40Z")
You’re not cynical, just blinkered. Many, many counterexamples exist, several of which have been pointed out to you in detail in this and previous threads. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/70 "2010-06-10T20:41:00Z")
Oh, you can make part of the world better, for a while. I just don’t think it will last. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/71 "2010-06-10T20:53:54Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I disagree that there is a difference in kind here. Many modern invasion and conquests (and many pre-modern ones) were based on some sort of existing historic claim - to “reunify” a group that had been “split by an accident of history”, or based on some bit of dynastic juggery, or to protect the frontiers. All that differs is the degree to which outsiders 'buy" the motive as legitimate. > > Look at the origins of WW2. According to Hitler, at least initially he wasn’t after conquest at all - only to correct the 'historic mistake" made of splitting the “German nation” up into a bunch of smaller countries by the powers after WW1. Seems to me exactly the same notion as that North & South Vietnam are ‘really one country’, that Taiwan is an indissoluble bit of China, that Tibet is a “historic part of China” (referenced by **China Guy** above), etc. etc. > > The odd man out or historically somewhat anomalous situation is the scramble by european nations for colonies, which lacked even a shred of that excuse. There have of course been empire-builders before, and probably will be again, but the conditions that make for empire-building probably do not exist right now. > > Invasions and conquests without some theory of historic or other legitimacy are rare. The reason Vietnam and Taiwan are different is that both sides considered them part of the same country (although that is starting to fade out in young Taiwanese today). The disagreement was only in which government should be in charge. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/72 "2010-06-11T01:59:09Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > How is that different from the domestic national sphere? The first order of business of the state is to stay the state. Yet, in democratic countries at least, the state has legitimacy. Few think of the cops as being nothing more than the oppressive organs of the state to keep itself alive (although in a sense they are). > > What is needed for a true world sovreign is for an international force to have that sort of widely acknowledged legitimacy - of the same type as that generally enjoyed by domestic forces of a democratic nation. > > We are nowhere near that yet, and of course it does no good to _pretend_ we are. But I do not regard it as _impossibly utopian_ any more than I regard Western-style democracy as “impossibly utopian”. A true world sovereign would have to _replace_ the sovereign nation-states that exist today. Today’s democracies are either former monarchies or dictatorships that reformed, or federal governments like the United States or Switzerland where formerly independent states agreed to cede at least some of their sovereignty and band together in the face of overwhelming external threat. A world government would have to emulate how the monarchies of sixteenth-century Europe abolished feudalism, bringing the local dukes to heel and making sure they knew who was boss. I’m not saying the legitimacy you speak of couldn’t somehow arise, although I don’t envision how. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/73 "2010-06-11T01:59:35Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Sorry, I’m just too cynical. Whenever there are human beings there will be tribes, and whenever there are tribes there will be bloodshed. So it ever was, so it ever shall be. Well I would quite strongly urge you to take a look at New Zealand’s history then - there may well be some lessons there for you. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/74 "2010-06-11T02:48:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This question’s immediate inspiration is the Palestine/Israel brouhaha ignited by Helen Thomas’ [unfortunate ejaculation](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=566191), but as that discussion has shown, it’s a question that comes up for any land conquered by force. Should the U.S. return Texas to Mexico? Hawaii to the native Hawaiians? Well, you choose two bad examples. Texas and the rest were more or less bought or seceded by the will of their occupants. California never considered itself part of Mexico, and Mexico’s soverienity over AZ, NM and such was limited and even of doubtful legality. In those cases, the population of actual Mexicans in those areas was around 20%. A good case can be brought that some of those areas seceded by the will of the inhabitants, and the rest was bought- at the point of a gun, yes, but Mexico was on the point of both bankruptcy and dissolution from within. There might not be a Mexico today if the USA hadn’t bailed the struggling government out with a large infusion of hard cash. Hawaii also overthrew it’s Monarch by the will of the citizens, who did not accept that the Monarch had the right to unilaterally abrogate the lawful Constitution. Yes, many of the citizens who took part in the revolt were white, but they had legitimately established their citizenship- many by being born there. Dole, for instance had been born in Honolulu. Does the fact he was white mean he had no right to citizenship or to participate in a government? So was Thurston, in fact I think his parents had been born there. The Queens “new Constitution” would have made her a near absolute monarch, and stripped white people of the right to vote. Hawaii was not in any way conquered by force, as in outside force. Rather, the Queen attempted a coup, and the government tossed her out. ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/75 "2010-06-11T02:59:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s undeniable that for much of human history, gaining title and authority to govern land was accomplished by conquest, and this was done without much in the way of hand-wringing over the rights of the conquered. I am no history expert, but I’m willing to bet that we won’t find William the Conqueror penning pensive asides about how he’d interfered with the native landholders. > > I think it’s pretty much undeniable to acknowledge that we cannot now unwind the clock and undo the results of every known conquest. > > At the same time, it seems clear that today, we stand pretty squarely against the idea that a nation-state may expand its territory by right of conquest. > > So … if both of these are true, then the question is obvious: where do we draw the line? Assuming this is a question of morality, rather than mere pragmatism (which can be twisted in any number of directions), I would say that a group of people defined by ethnicity/culture has the right to demand reparations/redress of some sort if that group is still suffering from those events. So, it’s not so much a certain timeframe (although more recent events would no doubt be more likely to qualify) than it is the persistence of the effects of those events. Generally, military conquest results in misery for the conquered, even after the war. In theory, if country A seizes country B, and then proceeds to treat the citizens of B equally and provide them due representation, there isn’t much of a moral claim to redress. But that never happens, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/76 "2010-06-11T07:32:25Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > Well I would quite strongly urge you to take a look at New Zealand’s history then - there may well be some lessons there for you. NZ’s history is full of inter-tribal wars, though- especially from the 19th century onwards, when some of the tribes acquired firearms from the Europeans and proceeded to put them to extremely effective use against their enemies. ---
**Author:** ![\_Undecided\_Adrian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/_/eada6e/32.png) [@\_Undecided\_Adrian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_Undecided_Adrian)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/77 "2010-06-11T07:41:41Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > A true world sovereign would have to _replace_ the sovereign nation-states that exist today. Today’s democracies are either former monarchies or dictatorships that reformed, or federal governments like the United States or Switzerland where formerly independent states agreed to cede at least some of their sovereignty and band together in the face of overwhelming external threat. A world government would have to emulate how the monarchies of sixteenth-century Europe abolished feudalism, bringing the local dukes to heel and making sure they knew who was boss. I’m not saying the legitimacy you speak of couldn’t somehow arise, although I don’t envision how. The EU didn’t form because of an internal threat, there was NATO to take care of that. The EU was formed to prevent internal wars. And regardless how far the integration goes, it already is sufficient to prevent that. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/78 "2010-06-11T08:17:48Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > NZ’s history is full of inter-tribal wars, though- especially from the 19th century onwards, when some of the tribes acquired firearms from the Europeans and proceeded to put them to extremely effective use against their enemies. WAS being the operative word, nowadays there is a very significant porportion of Maori that no longer identify by tribe, but rather by race. THis would have been unthinkable in the 1800s. The Maori were a very warlike culture, and did have both a lot of inter-tribal wars (and conversly, intertribal trade) with quite defined "tribal borders’ Indeed the founding document of New Zealand specifically recognises this by the fact that it did a tour of the country to be signed by all of the various chieftans (I know the number well exceeds 100, but I would have to google to find the exact number) There is also a good amount of the population that identifies themselves by their nationality, totally eschewing race as a valid descriptor for who they are. Which is what I was (trying to) indicate, just because in the past there was a lot of inter-whatever conflict, doesn not mean that its going to be that way forever, or needs to be that way forever. I would hazard a guess that New Zealand would stand as a really good example where previously warring groups have now buried thier differences. Of course it has taken around a century or so, but still, it can be done. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/79 "2010-06-11T08:26:06Z")
But despite that, NZ is still part of the world. New Zealanders still fought in WW2, and there’s always a chance that they might be dragged into some other global conflict far from home. No nation is ncompletely isolated, no matter how much it might want to be. Besides, NZ might be a stable country right now, but who knows what the future may bring? Everything falls apart, eventually. Enthropy and chaos always wins in the end. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/80 "2010-06-11T08:47:19Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > But despite that, NZ is still part of the world. New Zealanders still fought in WW2, and there’s always a chance that they might be dragged into some other global conflict far from home. No nation is ncompletely isolated, no matter how much it might want to be. > > Besides, NZ might be a stable country right now, but who knows what the future may bring? Everything falls apart, eventually. Enthropy and chaos always wins in the end. What point are you trying to make here? Yes, NZ fully took part in both WW, in WWI, our per capita casulties were very very high, we even lost some brave soldiers in the Boer war. SO? What does that mean, other than New Zealanders took responsibility for what they (as a nation) thought was right? As to the future? Things are suddenly going to start going backwards? The point to be made, is that tribes that had extreme amounts of enmity for each other, and then the “white man” who hated them and who every tribe was hated in return came to make things worse. These have all now been overcome. They all live in harmony (no it’s not Nirvana, but “race crimes” between Maori / Caucasian are very rare - except for uber skinhead type groups). If this can happen, why is it that one day Isreali / Palestinian can’t share a country? What makes them so unique that they can’t ever live together? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464.md?page=5)