The theft of Native Americans' land, in one animated map

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[afleitch]

'O beautiful for spacious skies...'

[Maistre]

This land was 'stolen'? I had no idea that North America was reserved for the Indians. Guess we'll just have to pack up and leave then.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This land was 'stolen'? I had no idea that North America was reserved for the Indians. Guess we'll just have to pack up and leave then.

How other than as stealing would you characterize the process by which the land was, uh, acquired? At best I could see calling it conquest.

[Padfoot]

This land was 'stolen'? I had no idea that North America was reserved for the Indians. Guess we'll just have to pack up and leave then.

If a foreign army showed up on the land you and your ancestors had lived on for thousands of years and told you it now belonged to them what would you call that?

What the US did to Native Americans during the 18th Century is one of the worst humanitarian crises in history.  Although not nearly as sadistic or extermination-minded, it is essentially an American Holocaust.  It's one of the saddest chapters in our nation's short history and it is something that all generations of Americans will have to come to grips with as a part of our country's identity.  Trying to wash it all away via the dubious argument that North America didn't really belong to anyone shows an extreme cultural bias for the Euro-centric concept of land ownership.  The fact is that the European colonists and later the US government wiped out the existing American nations in order to expand their empires because they believe their own culture was superior to that of the native people.  It's a mistake that the people of this planet have been making since the dawn of time.

However, current generations of Americans (I'm looking at you, bleeding hearts) need to stop trying to punish the country for past crimes.  What happened was terrible but there are no redos when it comes to ethnic extermination.  We can't un-invade America.  What we can do is continue to teach children about tolerance and acceptance of other cultures and worldviews in the hope that one day the world will learn its lesson and start making better choices.

[Meursault]

All the choices have been made. This Earth is effectively a democracy of the dead. It's a bit rich to pontificate about our imagined upward moral progress as a species when there will never again be a situation by which to judge it.

Of course, Maistre's position - worshipping immoral dead men in the name of a morality of piss - is even more pathetic.

[Cassius]

I think that some pretty outrageous double standards are applied when we talk of Europeans supposedly stealing the land of 'native peoples'. Let us remember that these very same native peoples were once invaders too, muscling in and taking the land from its previous occupants. The Mohawks and the Mahicans are a perfect example of this. The Mahicans were gradually driven eastwards by the Mohawks. Surely that counts as theft of land. If we take another, non-American example, surely the great migrations of the first millenium AD, migrations which helped forge Europe, were pretty blatant examples of the theft of land. Yet we don't have people calling for reparations for the descendents of the Tervingi Goths from the descendents of the Huns. I'm not going to say that what European peoples did in America, indeed, across much of the world, was 'right' as such; however, I'm not going to condemn it as wrong either, because these types of things are just how humanity works. This may be something of a tired argument, and I can understand the reasons for thinking so, but the European settlers were in no way morally inferior to the 'native' Americans, whom, I'd imagine, would have ended up doing exactly the same thing to us if they'd had the capability.

Of course its not nice if a bunch of settlers armed with muskets start building big wooden houses all over the place where you used to fish or to hunt. Of course its not nice if you get shot at by these settlers after attempting to set fire to these wooden houses. But, I repeat, that's simply the way things work. The Native Americans did not have the wherewithal to resist these settlers, and ended up getting both metaphorically and actually chopped. To throw in a cliche, there's no use crying over spilt milk, throwing around terms like genocide, theft, even Holocaust to describe events that were, in reality, a good deal less organised (and often less effective) than these terms imply.

[Meursault]

Don't be an idiot. Individual Native tribes were neither technologically nor organizationally capable of mass existential land-grabs ala their European inheritors. There is no ethical - the word 'moral' tastes like indigestion in my throat - equivalency between an attack by one tribe upon another and the systemic takeover of the continent by Europeans, any more than the murder of a handful of Jews during the Romanian Iron Guard revolt of 1940 compares to the German Holocaust. Make up your mind whether you're a moral absolutist or a relativist and stick to it.

I hate liberal aboriginal worship. But I utterly loathe conservative Dead White Manism.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Theft is theft.  Whether you think theft is justified in certain situations, or you're shamelessly going full Social Darwinist here, let's not delude ourselves into thinking it was anything other than that.  And I highly doubt the "That's the way it is" folks would be so nonchalant about it if it were their countries being invaded and imperialized.

[politicus]

[
However, current generations of Americans (I'm looking at you, bleeding hearts) need to stop trying to punish the country for past crimes.  What happened was terrible but there are no redos when it comes to ethnic extermination.  We can't un-invade America.  What we can do is continue to teach children about tolerance and acceptance of other cultures and worldviews in the hope that one day the world will learn its lesson and start making better choices.

It isn't solely about extermination. There are still plenty of descendants of the Indians who got their land stolen and the federal government owns a lot of land it could give them as compensation. Plus it could buy land from private land owners and distribute it to Native Americans.

So its basically a matter of political will. It wont happen because it will be unpopular with voters and cost a fortune, but of course compensation for part of the theft could be provided.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

As unfortunate as it is, I was born 100 years after the last of the Indians were gone, and I rather like having the west. Call me what you want, but I really don't care if we stole it or if we legitimately settled it. I also don't think the Indian's survival was remotely guaranteed, seeing as if we didn't get to that land the British, French, or Mexicans ultimately would. The point is, we have the land now, and it is never going back to the way it was before Columbus opened the pandoras box.

I am glad that we live in era where conquest is a thing of the past, but at the same time, where would every nation in the world be without it? The role of conquest, war, and yes, even atrocities, while greatly unfortunate, has shaped our modern world. I like our modern world and I don’t like apologizing for the crimes of those before me.

[Simfan34]

Okay, but what am I supposed to do about it?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Interesting map; thanks for posting.

As for the responses, well, all land is 'stolen', if you like, even in the Old World. Ownership of most land in England 'transfered' to a small group of disreputable francophone maniacs after 1066, for instance. Ownership of most land held by neither the crown nor private landowners was routinely 'stolen' from common ownership from the 12th century onwards and accelerated at a sickening pace - from the perspective of this prole - after 1604. In the twentieth century, much privately owned land was 'stolen' by the state for military purposes. Or to put it more succinctly - and note that I don't agree with the political sentiment behind this - La propriété, c'est le vol!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Besides, at least whitey in America had the decency to cheat the locals unfair and oblong; Down Under it was decreed that they didn't even own the land in the first place and so all was Terra nullius.

[Cassius]

Don't be an idiot. Individual Native tribes were neither technologically nor organizationally capable of mass existential land-grabs ala their European inheritors. There is no ethical - the word 'moral' tastes like indigestion in my throat - equivalency between an attack by one tribe upon another and the systemic takeover of the continent by Europeans, any more than the murder of a handful of Jews during the Romanian Iron Guard revolt of 1940 compares to the German Holocaust. Make up your mind whether you're a moral absolutist or a relativist and stick to it.

I hate liberal aboriginal worship. But I utterly loathe conservative Dead White Manism.

Well, certain Meso and South American cultures proved quite capable of undertaking large land grabs to form empires (in the process pissing off a lot of people, as with the Aztecs and the Tlaxcalans). Indeed, technological capacity is no barrier to being able to do so as long as your opponents are weaker than you are (the Mongols were positively primitive, at least towards the beginning, and yet were able to establish a vast, albeit short-lived, empire). Its simply a question of scale, and, yes, this was performed on a much grander scale by European powers in the 16th-20th centuries, but, that was only because of their technological superiority, not some 'ethical' differences. I'd also dispute your characterisation of the European conquest of the Americas as being systemic. A stronger case could, perhaps, be made for the American move westwards as being systemic, but not the haphazard, often random, development of European empires in the Americas. I mean, the Spanish didn't plan out in detail exactly which parts of the Americas that they were going to seize; they simply took what they found and could hold. Much as more 'primitive' native groups had done for millenia prior to that.

Theft is theft.  Whether you think theft is justified in certain situations, or you're shamelessly going full Social Darwinist here, let's not delude ourselves into thinking it was anything other than that.  And I highly doubt the "That's the way it is" folks would be so nonchalant about it if it were their countries being invaded and imperialized.

There was no international law regarding the treatment of the native peoples when Europeans blundered onto the scene in the 16th century. Native concepts of land ownership simply did not compute with the European concept of it. In that sense, it almost certainly can't be regarded as theft, because there were no laws governing land ownership that bound Europeans in that part of the world (not that they would kept them if there had been anyway). Its simply incongruous to describe it as theft, almost as if you were comparing it to the theft of a car or a computer. As to the latter part of your point; well, my country, such as it is (or at least its antecedents), has seen about five successive waves of invading peoples during its history. These groups made this country what it is today. Of course people object to having their homelands invaded. Its a perfectly normal and rational thing to do. But treating it as some sort of 'gotcha hypocrites' moment is not particularly helpful.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

There was no international law regarding the treatment of the native peoples when Europeans blundered onto the scene in the 16th century. Native concepts of land ownership simply did not compute with the European concept of it.

Since when do we use international law as the basis for whether something is moral or not?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, the absence of a law on something does not imply that the act in question is moral.  And even if it did, the idea of a 'UN' or international governing body would be ridiculous for a time when few people knew what lied beyond the hills.  I fail to see why theft of land cannot be compared to automobile theft in a moral sense.  If anything, it's worse than automobile theft.  But I can tell you're likely turning this into a weak semantics debate, so why don't you stop before you make an even bigger fool out of yourself?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nor is it the point.  Obviously it's absurd to demonize someone for what their ancestors did hundreds of years ago, but so is your relativist attitude toward what is no different than me breaking into your house, raping your wife, seizing your property, swindling you into giving up everything you may have left, and then forcing you and your neighbors into desolate "reservations," sealing you and your grandchildren in a never-ending spiral of poverty and suffering.

[RR1997]

This is the most depressing GIF ever.

[politicus]

As for the responses, well, all land is 'stolen', if you like, even in the Old World. Ownership of most land in England 'transfered' to a small group of disreputable francophone maniacs after 1066, for instance. Ownership of most land held by neither the crown nor private landowners was routinely 'stolen' from common ownership from the 12th century onwards and accelerated at a sickening pace - from the perspective of this prole - after 1604. In the twentieth century, much privately owned land was 'stolen' by the state for military purposes. Or to put it more succinctly - and note that I don't agree with the political sentiment behind this - La propriété, c'est le vol!

True if you go far enough back in history, all though the Norman conquest of England is an extreme example. William the Conquror is a member of a rather small and exclusive club of people who stole a country - basically the most lucrative kind of theft there is - other members being Cecil Rhodes, Pizarro, Cortez.

But the theft of America is the biggest land grap in history and it left the victims at the bottom of the social ladder in all countries, where they have remained ever since. So a case for some kind of redistribution could centainly be made.

[Хahar 🤔]

Don't worry, Cassius, white people have done plenty of awful things since this happened. There's no need to act like white people are being unfairly demonized for this.

[Cassius]

There was no international law regarding the treatment of the native peoples when Europeans blundered onto the scene in the 16th century. Native concepts of land ownership simply did not compute with the European concept of it.

Since when do we use international law as the basis for whether something is moral or not?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, the absence of a law on something does not imply that the act in question is moral.  And even if it did, the idea of a 'UN' or international governing body would be ridiculous for a time when few people knew what lied beyond the hills.  I fail to see why theft of land cannot be compared to automobile theft in a moral sense.  If anything, it's worse than automobile theft.  But I can tell you're likely turning this into a weak semantics debate, so why don't you stop before you make an even bigger fool out of yourself?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nor is it the point.  Obviously it's absurd to demonize someone for what their ancestors did hundreds of years ago, but so is your relativist attitude toward what is no different than me breaking into your house, raping your wife, seizing your property, swindling you into giving up everything you may have left, and then forcing you and your neighbors into desolate "reservations," sealing you and your grandchildren in a never-ending spiral of poverty and suffering.

My point wasn't that international law should be used as a basis for morality. But, when people introduce the term theft, which is a term with largely legal connotations, into the debate (often with the assumption that there must be some form of recompense for the descedents of those whose land was 'stolen') then law must be brought into the debate. My point is that retroactively classifying the European conquest of the Americas as 'theft' (which is a rather big generalisation, given that much of the land was won fairly and squarely by purchase or through battle) is not helpful, as the concept had no real meaning with regards to the relationship between the colonisers and the colonised. Conquest is an appropriate term, one which would have had meaning in the time period. Theft is not.

Theft of land can be compared to automobile theft when there are legitimate grounds to call it theft. If the landowner is recognised as the landowner by legal procedures, and then his land is somehow taken from him, that is theft. Where no established legal procedure other than some bizarre invocation of natural law exists to determine ownership, then the appropriation of land by another cannot be regarded as conquest.

As for your last point, of course, such things are basically bad. But, the fact is that such arguments about European 'theft' of native land are used to demonise the present day descendents of those people. The very idea of reparations and apologies implies moral responsibility on the part of those people. More to the point, this argument about the colonisations being 'theft' only stands up if one applies it to every similar action in human history, and this becomes very problematic as these type of acts are the layers upon which our present society was built. To argue that the Cherokee deserve reparations for American treatment of them, but the Welsh and Irish do not for English treatment of them, does rather smack of selectiveness. I'm not pointing the finger at you here, but more generally at those who look upon the colonisation of the Americas as some great, stand alone moral catastrophe, when really it was simply a continuation of what people have been doing to each other since the dawn of time. I'm not on anybody's side here; there were plenty of good, decent native Americans, just as there were plenty of good, decent colonists, including some of those who ended up waging war against the native populations. I'm simply arguing that a largely black portrayal of the European colonisation as something largely negative is, in my view, wrong.

Don't worry, Cassius, white people have done plenty of awful things since this happened. There's no need to act like white people are being unfairly demonized for this.

Of course they have Xahar, of course they have. Just as blacks, Asians and indeed, Native Americans have done too. In our fallen state as people, we are all equal.

[Joe Republic]

Someone needs to bump this thread on Thanksgiving.

[afleitch]

The theft of their land was the least of their worries. It was the forced dismantling of their culture while bastardizing it for your own use in everything from advertising to the Boy Scouts that was the killer blow.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The theft of their land was the least of their worries. It was the forced dismantling of their culture while bastardizing it for your own use in everything from advertising to the Boy Scouts that was the killer blow.

A lot of what is thought as 'Native culture' was/is a postcolonial invention and this certainly includes a lot of what Indians themselves think of as their culture.

[Mechaman]

There was no international law regarding the treatment of the native peoples when Europeans blundered onto the scene in the 16th century. Native concepts of land ownership simply did not compute with the European concept of it.

Since when do we use international law as the basis for whether something is moral or not?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, the absence of a law on something does not imply that the act in question is moral.  And even if it did, the idea of a 'UN' or international governing body would be ridiculous for a time when few people knew what lied beyond the hills.  I fail to see why theft of land cannot be compared to automobile theft in a moral sense.  If anything, it's worse than automobile theft.  But I can tell you're likely turning this into a weak semantics debate, so why don't you stop before you make an even bigger fool out of yourself?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nor is it the point.  Obviously it's absurd to demonize someone for what their ancestors did hundreds of years ago, but so is your relativist attitude toward what is no different than me breaking into your house, raping your wife, seizing your property, swindling you into giving up everything you may have left, and then forcing you and your neighbors into desolate "reservations," sealing you and your grandchildren in a never-ending spiral of poverty and suffering.

My point wasn't that international law should be used as a basis for morality. But, when people introduce the term theft, which is a term with largely legal connotations, into the debate (often with the assumption that there must be some form of recompense for the descedents of those whose land was 'stolen') then law must be brought into the debate. My point is that retroactively classifying the European conquest of the Americas as 'theft' (which is a rather big generalisation, given that much of the land was won fairly and squarely by purchase or through battle) is not helpful, as the concept had no real meaning with regards to the relationship between the colonisers and the colonised. Conquest is an appropriate term, one which would have had meaning in the time period. Theft is not.

Theft of land can be compared to automobile theft when there are legitimate grounds to call it theft. If the landowner is recognised as the landowner by legal procedures, and then his land is somehow taken from him, that is theft. Where no established legal procedure other than some bizarre invocation of natural law exists to determine ownership, then the appropriation of land by another cannot be regarded as conquest.

As for your last point, of course, such things are basically bad. But, the fact is that such arguments about European 'theft' of native land are used to demonise the present day descendents of those people. The very idea of reparations and apologies implies moral responsibility on the part of those people. More to the point, this argument about the colonisations being 'theft' only stands up if one applies it to every similar action in human history, and this becomes very problematic as these type of acts are the layers upon which our present society was built. To argue that the Cherokee deserve reparations for American treatment of them, but the Welsh and Irish do not for English treatment of them, does rather smack of selectiveness. I'm not pointing the finger at you here, but more generally at those who look upon the colonisation of the Americas as some great, stand alone moral catastrophe, when really it was simply a continuation of what people have been doing to each other since the dawn of time. I'm not on anybody's side here; there were plenty of good, decent native Americans, just as there were plenty of good, decent colonists, including some of those who ended up waging war against the native populations. I'm simply arguing that a largely black portrayal of the European colonisation as something largely negative is, in my view, wrong.

Don't worry, Cassius, white people have done plenty of awful things since this happened. There's no need to act like white people are being unfairly demonized for this.

Of course they have Xahar, of course they have. Just as blacks, Asians and indeed, Native Americans have done too. In our fallen state as people, we are all equal.

Have you forgotten the past 100 years?  Or did I just step into an alternate reality where the British still own 100% of Ireland instead of just the 15% or so that was subject to bitter civil squabbling for a lot of the time and that there is not party that is dedicated to Welsh nationalism?

If anything, the Cherokees are getting very little compared to the Welsh or the Irish.  And I'm saying this as an Irish American, not some bitter Cherokee.

EDIT: I know you meant this more as a "those who argue" counter point, but I have literally never heard anyone argue that the British should've kept all of Ireland while the American government needs to cede stolen lands back to the Native Americans, which seems to be the implication of the bolded point.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

So a case for some kind of redistribution could certainly be made.

I don't see how that is remotely feasible, let alone justifiable. Should the Arabs be forced out of the Maghreb 700 years after they took it? Redistribution of land just can’t happen, though monetary compensation and reparations could be awarded by the government (at the expense of the collective taxpayers and not individual descendents of people who were involved in the slow conquest of America).

Keep in mind, my great-great grandmother was a Cherokee Indian. I do not look Native American at all (though a few of my great-aunts do have very distinct Indian features), nor do I identify with Cherokee culture at all. People like me should not be eligible for compensation, and the fact that so many Americans are in some way or another Native American would make this process very wasteful and hard to work out.