I just read this really cute post by an individual trying to rationalize land theft.


When you phrase a claim as you did you are lumping all white men together as having stole ‘the land’. While it is true that some white men did as you said, there were also brown men who did the same as the Spanish and French also did this. There were also a greater number of 'white' men who did not engage in this at all. Hence your argument is only partially correct. It is also only partially correct for there is no way for you to prove that all land was in fact stolen as there was no real method of documentation as to what lands were owned. You are also assuming that ownership meant the same to Indians as it does to us or did to Europeans. You are assuming that lands were not given to ‘the white men’, but you have no evidence that this did not occur. In short your entire argument on this point is nothing more than a hasty generalization.

You were called on it and rather than clarify your argument you cling to your previous half truth and try to twist your previously made statements to mean that since some white men did as you described your statement is accurate and your logic sound. The reality is that your first statement on this subject was poorly constructed, your argument was built on a hasty generalization, and you are now engaging in a fruitless effort to defend an un-defendable generalization.

Not that I will continue this discussion, but to demonstrate that there is evidence of controversy surrounding legality in land transactions....

Quote:
Alden Vaughan would like to lay to rest the many "myths" concerning how the Puritans obtained land from the Indians. He maintains that the Indians were almost never the victims of unscrupulous colonists who obtained land from the Indians either by getting them drunk, resorting to some sort of trickery beyond the Indian experience, or trading for a handful of trinkets. Francis Jennings and James Axtell disagree.

Jennings acknowledges that the English, more often than not, obtained Indian land by legal means, but he does so with some qualification. "Euroamericans competing for Indian lands - whether governments, companies or individuals -legitimized their claims by recognizing or inventing whatever purported rights might be severally available to them." (37) The first of these inventions which shall be explored will be the notion of VACUUM DOMICILIUM.

http://newman.baruch.cuny.edu/DIGITA...90.htm#part_37

And I even provided a site that documents the critics qualifications and explanations of some of these schemes used, but I shall say no more on the subject for I would not want to veer any more than necessary.

Are all Americans like this? Are all Americans really so brainwashed?

I think that was a very well thought out and well written post. I will just say that "land theft" is a silly concept because when one talks about the acquisition of land by Europeans from Native Americans, one often places the Europeans and Native Americans on unequal ground. People are people, first and foremost, and people do what they are naturally inclined to do, and territorial aggression toward other people is one of those tendencies. I am not trying to justify the conquest of America by Europeans and the annihilation of Native American peoples because I do not feel it is necessary to justify or vilify the action. It happened, and that kind of thing has been happening since life has existed on this planet. One group of animals conquers and exiles/exterminates another group of animals and then proceeds to use the territory that the previous group was unable to keep. It happened, and it happened because the Native peoples were unable to stop it from happening. That really should be the end of it, and that will be the end of my post because it is late where I live and I am tired. That is all.

Denial is especially cute when it is evinced by those who are themselves guilty of it but regardless have a penchant for pointing it out in others.

I believe the notion of owning land is as silly as the concept of selling it. No one can claim ownership of a land anymore than one can claim ownership of the sun or stars.

Just because one lives in a certain place does not mean they own it. There are only places one is willing to fight over and places one would not.

The Native Americans had no authority to sell land anymore than Europeans had the authority to buy it. The issue of the fairness of the transactions is moot.

There was plenty enough land for everyone to coexist but the greedy Europeans had to have ALL the land instead of what was needed to live.

The greed of the Europeans is what ultimetly destroyed the Native Americans. The "stealing" of the land was just the most devastating method.

What I don't get is that the indians will say "No one can own the land." Then they turn around and say "Whites stole the land from us." If it's not owned, how can it be stolen?

Things that make you go, "hmmmmm..."

:m: Peace.

What I don't get is that the indians will say "No one can own the land." Then they turn around and say "Whites stole the land from us." If it's not owned, how can it be stolen?

The 'whites' stole the land by 'owning' it?

If at one point nobody owns the land and suddenly someone comes and 'owns' the land, the land isn't belonging to nobody anymore. It belonged to nobody, and now it belongs to somebody. Making the ownership of nobody into an ownership of somebody.

Confusing isn't it? But the heart of the issue is that ownership has changed from 'all', which is the same as 'nobody' in a strange communist indian way, to some.

Nobody and all are interchangable in this regard. If all own the land, nobody owns the land in the sense of specific individuals.

na ja..I don't think I can put it any clearer. At least I give up for now.

I think it comes down to the fact that the earth has limited resources and it takes a lot more land to support a hunter-gatherer society than an agricultural one?

And if you listen to Indian oral history they took the land from the people before, they admit that they drove out a civilization that existed on the land before them!

Humans might think they can own the land but if you listen carefully the mountains will tell you differently

This is an interesting topic to bring up, as it appears that the US is facing a very ironic 'invasion' by Mexicans, a large proportion of whom have substantial Amerindian ancestry. The reflexive reaction of this in the US has been, predictably enough, to demand that these invaders go through the proper legal channels of immigration.

Yet for the first two hundred years or so of American history, as I understand it, 'de jure' channels took a back seat to 'de facto' ones. The policy was might makes right, and no claims were respected except those that were backed by superior firepower.

So which is it? Might makes right - ie, one can stay if one can get away with it; or Right makes right - ie, act in accordance with empathy and a universal sense of fairness. Historically people have see-sawed between these two depending on which favoured their cause at that particular moment. The history of the monarchical succession of England is a wonderful example of this.

Some men have seized the throne and made themselves King simply because they wanted to and had the martial capacity to overthrow the old one. This kind of 'de facto' King, when later faced with an even stronger man who lusts for the Crown, will have the cheek to claim that he is King by the will of God and that he reigns in a 'de jure' capacity. He will call his opponent a 'wicked Pretender', conveniently omitting to mention what he did to his own predecessor. And so it goes. Will humans ever learn? Probably not.