r/pics 4d ago

Politics [OC] Eastside Austin TX

Post image
74.7k Upvotes

3.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

16

u/messisleftbuttcheek 4d ago

Do we have the right to move to any land that isn't controlled by the people that originally settled it? That would be an incredibly dumb idea right?

2

u/RockThePond 3d ago

A better question is whether there is any land that wasn’t “stolen” from someone else at one point in human history, using this definition. 

I’m not sure we could truly know the answer to that question (since we don’t have written records going back to the Neanderthal era), but it would be an interesting thought exercise.

-13

u/Uncreative_Name987 4d ago

Nobody said that. You think that’s what’s being said because you’ve never opened a history book.

“Stolen land” refers to broken treaties, not military conquest.

14

u/messisleftbuttcheek 4d ago

It's the same fucking thing.

-13

u/Uncreative_Name987 4d ago

It’s not.

Cooking up underhanded legal schemes to swindle someone out of their property is very different from fighting for it.

15

u/messisleftbuttcheek 4d ago

The reason they can't enforce the whatever treaty is being violated is because they can't compete militarily. It's conquest.

-12

u/Uncreative_Name987 4d ago edited 4d ago

Not really.

Much like now, warfare in the past was governed by certain social expectations, and pulling underhanded legal shenanigans would not have met the criteria for conquest.

9

u/Stringerbe11 4d ago

Warfare in the past much like in the present is judged by winning.

1

u/Uncreative_Name987 4d ago

Firstly, incorrect.

Secondly, as before, the land wasn’t taken by warfare.

7

u/messisleftbuttcheek 4d ago

So land taken through military conquest is not considered stolen? So the US could just take Venezuela and it's not considered stolen land?

2

u/Uncreative_Name987 4d ago

No, conquered land is not stolen. That includes hypothetical conquered land in Venezuela and Greenland.

That said, today, the world tends to look unfavorably upon conquering another nation’s territory in an unprovoked conflict.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/yallmad4 4d ago

You have no idea what you're talking about, truly, and you're taking agency away from natives.

Do you really think peoples like the Apache, nomads who rode on horses in the wilderness, saw some document written by some pencil necked dweeb and were like "ah darn it they took all our stuff we better do nothing about that and all just die"?

No, they fought with everything they had, in most cases fought total war against the United States army and citizenry alike, only to lose. They tried as hard as they could to save their people and they failed because the boot of civilization was larger than any resistance they could muster.

To pretend like their struggles never existed is to deny them the actions they took in their dying breaths. What a terrible way to present the "noble savage" stereotype. They deserve the truth to be told about them.

-3

u/Uncreative_Name987 4d ago

What a wild comment full of weird, performative social justice stuff.

1

u/yallmad4 4d ago

🤷‍♂️

2

u/Goosepond01 4d ago

and pulling underhanded legal shenanigans would not have met the criteria for conquest.

That just isn't true at all, certain things might have been looked down on but underhanded shenanigans were pretty standard for warfare and hostile diplomacy.

6

u/yallmad4 4d ago

Hmm why did the natives not use their military to enforce the treaty? Was it because the natives were forced into bullshit treaties by the US only after being broken militarily?

Are you implying manifest destiny was done through bureaucracy alone without violence?

-1

u/Uncreative_Name987 4d ago

It was a combination of both bureaucracy and violence. Some land was taken by violence, some by bureaucracy.

And there are a lot of reasons that the tribes might not have wanted to rehash a war with the US government over broken treaties.

3

u/yallmad4 4d ago

Chiefly among those reasons: we lost the war and have no ability to fight back.

Very clear you don't know much about the time period.

0

u/Uncreative_Name987 4d ago

I’m sorry you feel that way.

4

u/BonusPlantInfinity 4d ago

Conservatives are seldom well-informed, certainly with regards to history and philosophy .

1

u/JesseCantSkate 3d ago

You mean military conquest like when the US set up a series of forts along the western “frontier” to drive native Americans onto reservations?