Living on stolen land

[Guitar's Cry]

By that standard the actions of the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand were fine. In rather little time the natives lost control and the actions of the British settlers were well accepted by their other peer sovereignties.

Sure, fine by them. It doesn't mean "stolen" isn't an incorrect word to use.

It is very difficult to right wrongs in the distant past. But we can deal with it today.

Agreed!

 

[Subduction Zone]

They could if it was ketamine from a pharmacy.

Yes, but that is because a pharmacy can legally own and sell those drugs. And now we are back to what the US did was right because other countries saw it as our right.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Yes, but that is because a pharmacy can legally own and sell those drugs. And now we are back to what the US did was right because other countries saw it as our right.

And I agree that terms like "legal" and "legitimate" apply, though this needs to be considered as a morally "might makes right" argument.

Another difference is the purpose of the drug dealing. One is for medical benefit, the other is for profit from harm. Similarly, while the original arguments for American "colonization" may have included "civilizing" the Indigenous folks, the actual impact has been largely negative.

Regardless, it was done without permission which is stealing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, I seem to recall one case many years ago I read about, where one drug dealer went to the police to report that his illegal drugs were stolen by another dealer. It was one of those typical "stupid criminal" stories. The police caught the drug thief, and both perpetrator and victim ended up in jail.

What were they charged with? I doubt if the thief was charged with theft unless he stole something else in addition to the drugs. I could see both being arrested on "possession".

 

[Subduction Zone]

And I agree that terms like "legal" and "legitimate" apply, though this needs to be considered as a morally "might makes right" argument.

Another difference is the purpose of the drug dealing. One is for medical benefit, the other is for profit from harm. Similarly, while the original arguments for American "colonization" may have included "civilizing" the Indigenous folks, the actual impact has been largely negative.

Regardless, it was done without permission which is stealing.

I would say it was immoral but the claim "stealing" does not apply since that is a legal term.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I would say it was immoral but the claim "stealing" does not apply since that is a legal term.

Not always. We don't need to have the force of law to apply when we use the term. I mean, my heart was stolen by my wife. Damn her! Why won't she give it back! (That was meant humorously, obviously!)

 

[Stevicus]

What were they charged with? I doubt if the thief was charged with theft unless he stole something else in addition to the drugs. I could see both being arrested on "possession".

I don't recall exactly what they were charged with, but it probably wasn't theft. Although I can see where, technically, they could charge them with that. I've noticed a tendency that if they can tack on a lot of peripheral crimes to whatever major crime someone has done, they often do.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I would say it was immoral but the claim "stealing" does not apply since that is a legal term.

Though, also, I imagine a legal claim could be made in the way of winning treaties through deceit and then breaking them...

 

[Guitar's Cry]

If a legal definition of "stolen" is being used, given that legal means were used to acquire Indigenous land (deceitful as it may have been), but these treaties were broken, then wouldn't that be considered stealing, legally?

Broken Treaties With Native American Tribes: Timeline | HISTORY

 

[PureX]

I see no logical reason to pass blame in this way.

Who does the Earth "belong to"? It either belongs to us all, or it belongs to no one. And the days of "finders keepers" are long behind us.

So I see no value to be gained from this line of reasoning. Instead, let's try and learn how to share what is here, equitably.

 

[Stevicus]

Russia believes that Ukraine is occupying their lands, that is the essence of irredentism: "our people" are suffering in stolen lands and we should have them back.

Also the idea that there are no tangible effects of historical settler-colonialism today doesn't hold much water.

The heirs of the ancient Britons, the Welsh, are certainly tangibly impacted by Anglo-Saxons "stealing" their land and relegating them a small portion of it. The same is true just about anywhere where there are descendent of those who lost territorial conflict.

Is there some kind of "statute of limitations" involved in this? I was thinking of another example, Alsace-Lorraine, which was traded back and forth between the French and the Germans between 1871 and 1918. Then the Germans got it back briefly during WW2, then back to France.

In the case of Ukraine and Russia, it's a bit more complicated. The boundaries of the former Soviet republics were drawn by the former Soviet government and don't really match exactly or coincide with the internal designations or boundaries which existed within the Russian Empire. But the bottom line is that Russia agreed to those borders, so now they're stuck with that decision. It was not conquered or annexed by Ukraine.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It is a worthless phrase.

This land was not “stolen”. It was conquered, and won. There is much to be proud of, and nothing to be ashamed of.

Might is right?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I see no logical reason to pass blame in this way.

Who does the Earth "belong to"? It either belongs to us all, or it belongs to no one. And the days of "finders keepers" are long behind us.

So I see no value to be gained from this line of reasoning. Instead, let's try and learn how to share what is here, equitably.

I agree, in a philosophical sense. But in a practical manner we still have to deal with "ownership."

My body doesn't really belong to me outside of this temporal pattern, but I still have to brush my teeth and avoid getting murdered.

 

[Altfish]

The problem with this is how far back do you go?
Take the UK, we are descendants of Anglo Saxons, but before that were Celts, Pics, etc. The Romans were over here for many years.
200-years ago and before it was the way of the world.

 

[Stevicus]

If a legal definition of "stolen" is being used, given that legal means were used to acquire Indigenous land (deceitful as it may have been), but these treaties were broken, then wouldn't that be considered stealing, legally?

Broken Treaties With Native American Tribes: Timeline | HISTORY

I could see that, although one could question the pretense of making treaties by a government which never had any intention of honoring those treaties. Someone else mentioned "conquering," but it wasn't really like that. America's expansionism was as much a matter of flimflammery as anything else.

It is said that a lawyer can steal more with a briefcase than a hundred men armed with machine guns. It might also be said that a politician can steal more than an army of one million men (although about 50,000 cavalry might do).

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I read through your post, and I guess my issue is that I don't really know if 'settling' is exactly the correct term in european case, for although that is what did happen in effect, it was often probably incidental / secondary to another process. And by the that, I mean that is seems to me that there must have been something awry at home, for we, the descendants of the europeans, to actually go and settle all these lands at such a large scale. If you are a historian, you tell me why.

Did they need space for convicts, so that's the reason for making space in places australia and french guiana? Was there religious strife in europe, causing people to flee to america, and did some also come, conversely, to practice an even more austere version of their religion? Was there overpopulation? As to the slave trade, what is the origin of having such a disrespectful view of labor itself, to cause there to be such a mass market for slavery? And so you see, the 'settling' might have been incidental to many primary headings, making it more of a symptom of something else

I think maybe what happened, is that the europeans become 'unsettled,' and that is why I am flung out here in the american midwest, as opposed to being somewhere in britain. If you can't establish an honest economy, relation to religion, law, population level etc., then something isn't stable.

It varies from place to place.

In Australia's case, the Brits 'founded' us (nevermind the indigenous population, the occasional Indonesian traders nor previous Dutch explorers who had discovered the land, amongst others).
They were in no great rush to actually DO anything with Australia, but claiming it gave them a measure of flexibility if a purpose was arrived at. The American War of Independence meant British convicts could no longer be shipped to the Americas so...there ya have it. The interim solution of Prison Hulks had proven to be disastrous.

Some have speculated that an intent to colonise was always there, but...it's kinda hard to prove, honestly. Majority of convicts were given 7-year sentences, so in time, plenty became freemen, and of them, plenty preferred to stay in the new land. Harsh as it was, there was a mixture of the downtrodden, the mistreated, and political prisoners you could almost consider refugees in a sense. It was only later ships that carried the type of materials, livestock, etc, that suggested the intent for more permanent settlement.

New Zealand was completely different. Europeans were attracted for financial reasons (eg. seals) and it was only after trading colonies, hunting operations, etc, were established that the Brits decided to establish NZ as an official British colony, both for the reason of establishing order, and better trade, as well as a way of ensuring French Pacific explorers didn't get big ideas about claiming NZ for France.

In neither case was unrest in Britain the key driver, although it's fair to say that the floating Prison Hulks in Britain were unsustainable.

 

[Aupmanyav]

They have lived there for centuries. So, let it be. But if the original owners are poor, then the settlers have a responsibility towards them.

 

[PureX]

I agree, in a philosophical sense. But in a practical manner we still have to deal with "ownership."

My body doesn't really belong to me outside of this temporal pattern, but I still have to brush my teeth and avoid getting murdered.

Not so much ownership as occupation. To live in a place is to have learned how to occupy it. That knowledge and effort need to be respected as new people wish to join in.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I could see that, although one could question the pretense of making treaties by a government which never had any intention of honoring those treaties. Someone else mentioned "conquering," but it wasn't really like that. America's expansionism was as much a matter of flimflammery as anything else.

It is said that a lawyer can steal more with a briefcase than a hundred men armed with machine guns. It might also be said that a politician can steal more than an army of one million men (although about 50,000 cavalry might do).

Absolutely! I think it was @Augustus that made the point that theft of land by violence is "conquering," and I agree. It is similar to how guns rights advocates sometimes use "tool" to describe guns when we have a word for tools designed for causing physical damage: "weapon." Using "tool" (or "stolen") is technically accurate despite having a more precise term, but it depends on the message a person is getting across.

Stolen is helpful in my opinion, because regardless of legality or historical intention, ownership implies responsibility towards both the land and the people on it (including the original Indigenous populations).

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Not so much ownership as occupation. To live in a place is to have learned how to occupy it. That knowledge and effort need to be respected as new people wish to join in.

Absolutely!