Living on stolen land

[Augustus]

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.

IMO we should see it as just another example of the mass human population movements that have happened throughout history.

Mass population movements have always happened, yet these ones seem to be treated differently.

No one, for example, looks at the population movements within Africa that were happening at the same time and sees them as examples of "stolen land". They have neutral terms like "the Bantu expansion", similar to how we view earlier population movements.

If you are a historian, you tell me why.

I'm not a historian, but there were many reasons.

Opportunity for a better life, to make money or to build a 'true' religious community.

Irish fleeing famine, Scots leaving after defeat of the Jacobites and also the highland clearances, French Huguenots fleeing persecution, people avoiding conscription during conflicts like the War of the Austrian succession and 7 years war, etc. etc.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The land, like the short time we dwell on it, is only ever lent to us. If we’d all remember that law of nature, perhaps we could manage to hold it in common for the short time we spend as it’s custodians.

Here are few verses that seem apropos;

Psalms 49:10-15

 

[Twilight Hue]

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 see it as a law of nature.

Prime territory is always owned, or more accurately, controlled by the strongest and the fittest. Man and beast alike.

That can include mental as well as physical prowess.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Interesting OP! Whenever I think about this, I always get stuck on how to draw the line. Is there a statute of limitations? Who deserves reparations and who doesn't?

Nobody. There's only foreword as I see it.

It's peculiar how people long dead and gone are somehow transferring the blame on those who have really nothing to do with anything whatsoever from the past.

It's history, not accountability as some prefer to see it.

 

[danieldemol]

I think that in order to help prevent them happening again we have to acknowledge that certain things done in the past were wrong by today's standards at least.

So I have no problem referring to land taken forcefully as stolen.

Also I think it is not the case that theif A steals from theif B. Sometimes land is taken then people descended from the thieves who did not commit any crime themselves but were only descended from the criminals have their land stolen.

In my opinion.

 

[PureX]

I see it as a law of nature.

Prime territory is always owned, or more accurately, controlled by the strongest and the fittest. Man and beast alike.

That can include mental as well as physical prowess.

I understand, but fortunately, not all humans are content to live like dumb animals. Some are trying to rise above living that kind of violent, pointless existence. Progress is slow, because it takes a lot of faith, wisdom, and courage to cooperate instead of dominate.

 

[Stevicus]

In some cases it wasn't even as deliberate and organised as that. The Black Hills were taken by settlers despite the best efforts...or at least efforts...of the government to dissuade white settlement (a violation of the 1968 Treaty of Fort Laramie with the 'Sioux Nation' and Arapaho peoples).

As is often the case, things were messy. Custer marched onto the protected lands, nominally to track down rogue bands of Indians who hadn't presented at the prescribed reservations. But the presence of geologists with him confuses things, and those same geologists discovered gold.

From there, General Sheridan played an interesting game, both ordering his subordinates to clear the rapidly growing mining population from protected lands, and also letting anyone who would listen know he wasn't opposed to settlement by white communities. In any case, attempts to displace the growing mining population were unsuccessful, and as tensions and violence rose, the President decided action had to be taken to protect the (illegal) white settlers from Indian attacks. And so the treaty was simply cast aside, and Indians were ordered to move away from their legally acquired hunting grounds and reservations, because gold.

Yep, gold trumps everything. By the way, I think that's a typo, as it was 1868 (Treaty of Fort Laramie).

This is often where historical perceptions can go awry. For the first 10-12 years of my life, I was raised on "Cowboy and Indian" stories, usually in the context of innocent white settlers seeking a better life, while being mercilessly attacked by Indians for no reason. Then, at some point, I learned that they actually did have reasons for attacking.

That's part of the reason I focus more on motive, since the Western tendency to ignore motive or pretend like there is no motive can be rather infuriating.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

IMO we should see it as just another example of the mass human population movements that have happened throughout history.

Mass population movements have always happened, yet these ones seem to be treated differently.

Well again, it became so very, very far flung. I don't know that many other groups would do it quite like that, what with the extremely liberality of continent jumping, over a relatively short period

 

[Augustus]

I don't know that many other groups would do it quite like that, what with the extremely liberality of continent jumping, over a relatively short period

Only because they didn't have the technology.

Vikings (including Normans) settled from Iceland, to Britain and France to Sicily with basic boats.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yep, gold trumps everything. By the way, I think that's a typo, as it was 1868 (Treaty of Fort Laramie).

This is often where historical perceptions can go awry. For the first 10-12 years of my life, I was raised on "Cowboy and Indian" stories, usually in the context of innocent white settlers seeking a better life, while being mercilessly attacked by Indians for no reason. Then, at some point, I learned that they actually did have reasons for attacking.

That's part of the reason I focus more on motive, since the Western tendency to ignore motive or pretend like there is no motive can be rather infuriating.

Bahaha...yes indeed.
1868.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Only because they didn't have the technology.

Vikings (including Normans) settled from Iceland, to Britain and France to Sicily with basic boats.

Basic boats, or boats with a shallow draft so you could go way, way out there. It's perhaps another example, again, about a certain state of dissatisfaction, and the need to find material or spiritual hope elsewhere. To go trade way, way out in the middle-east, to become a 'norman' and speak french

 

[RestlessSoul]

Only because they didn't have the technology.

Vikings (including Normans) settled from Iceland, to Britain and France to Sicily with basic boats.

Those boats were cutting edge technology for their day; stable, light, low in the water, and quick. The clinker built (overlapping planks) hull was a Scandinavian design. And they kept improving the model and construction.