Are we living on stolen land?

This is a claim you will hear from leftists and native activists, but is it true? There are three considerations when addressing this accusation. First, North America is vast. The native population in what is now the United States was estimated to be roughly 3-5 million, as opposed to the nearly 350 million that it is now. That means there were huge swaths of land that were unoccupied and unclaimed and therefore not stolen. Some lands became unoccupied due to a tribe dying out for various reasons. This happened to the Patuxet. They were wiped out by an epidemic, so by the time the pilgrims landed on Cape Cod, that land was unoccupied.

Second, some of the land was fairly sold/traded to the Europeans. There are certainty instances of treaties being broken, and the natives didn't understand land ownership the way the Europeans did, at least initially. Regardless, not all land was obtained through duplicity or war.

Third, and perhaps the most poignant, "all" nations have come about through conquest, including tribal nations. Like it or not, land belongs to the victor, those who can occupy it and defend it. Even the natives understood territorial boundaries and straying into their territory could get you killed. One can make all the territorial claims they want, but unless they have the ability to control the land, their claims are meaningless. 

Now, even if one did not accept those considerations and insisted on returning the land to the original inhabitants, that becomes problematic. It would be impossible to know who the land originally belonged to. Sure, it may have previously belonged to tribe X, but which tribe did it belong to before them, and before them, and before them, and so on? Territorial ownership was not static. Tribes migrated, died off, or were conquered by more dominant tribes. It's impossible to know who specifically the land originally belonged to. And even if you could know, then what? Do you displace the thousands or millions of people who live there, causing undue hardship? Such a proposal would not be practical or feasible.

Popular posts from this blog

A Brief History of Islam: Part 2 Christendom Strikes Back

Image
In less than 80 years, Islam expanded from the Arabian Peninsula to encompass nearly all the Middle and Near East and all of North Africa. On the 30th of April 711, Muslim troops under the command of Tariq ibn Ziyad crossed the Straights of Gibraltar and landed on mainland Europe for the first time. The invasion took everyone in Spain completely by surprise. Within 8 short years the Muslims had occupied most of Spain. As part of their subjugation, the Spanish were forced to hand over 100 white virgins a year to the Muslims be used in their harems. The first Muslim invasion of Sicily took place in 652 but failed, as did repeated attempts in 667 and 720. Between failed attempts and a civil war among the Muslims, it took them 70 years to finally succeed. After the fall of Sicily, they crossed into Southern Italy. Rome was pillaged twice, and the Pope was forced to pay a huge tribute. Several major Mediterranean islands were also conquered, including Cyprus, Rhodes, Sardinia, Majorca...
Read more

Thoughts on the Declaration of Independence and Slavery

It may seem odd at first that the Declaration of Independence doesn't address the issue of slavery. The left, of course, uses this as an opportunity to attack it. How could all men be created equal while slavery still existed? However, the issue was not so cut and dry. Slavery was ingrained into every culture on earth, and ending slavery wasn't something that could be changed in one night, the Civil War proved that. First, a little background. We inherited our slavery from the British, and King George III opposed anti-slavery laws. In 1774 he vetoed every anti-slave law in America. This caused Thomas Jefferson to condemn slavery directly in the first draft of the Declaration of Independence: He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transporta...
Read more

Thoughts on veganism\vegetarians

You know, I don't really care what other people eat. I have a crazy idea that people should be free to eat what they want. If someone wants to eat meat or not that's up to them. I'm not interested in debating which is healthier. What I'm here to talk about is the vegans and vegetarians who want to shame anyone who eats meat.  I'm aware not all vegans/vegetarians are this way, and this is not directed toward them.What I'm talking about are the radical vegans & vegetarians who display an unearned morally superiority against anyone who doesn't eat like them. This extreme form of veganism\vegetarianism is more than a diet, it's an ideology. The main selling point of the radically veggies is that they are more ethical by eating only vegetables. Okay, let's think about this. Ethics is defined as a set of moral principles, especially ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct.  When you ascribe something as ethical, yo...
Read more