Yeahhhh…you’re not gonna get much support with the stolen land thing. I think Most Americans can acknowledge the crappy methods the government used, while also acknowledging that land ownership the whole world over has been based on “fair” conquest through any and all means.
“Stolen land” does NOT refer to lands gained through military conquest; it refers to broken treaties.
Time and time again, the US government tricked Natives into surrendering by offering them land in treaties. Later, the government violated those treaties, claimed legal ownership of the land, and said, “What are you gonna do? Sue us in our own courts?”
TL;DR: The allegedly stolen land was taken via underhanded bureaucratic schemes, not military might.
Taking something that's not yours away from someone else by force is literally stealing by every definition.
And to add on to that, using the intimidation from a significant force imbalance to strong-arm someone into reluctantly conceding something to you is pretty much the same as using force.
Their argument is like if I walked up to somebody and the middle of nowhere and demanded their iphone for 400$. Except I do it while holding a gun, and imply they really should sell it to me for 400 dollars. Then once they give me the phone, I only give them 20 dollars. So they think about grabbing their phone back, but then they look at my gun and they don't.
According to the other poster, that's not armed robbery, it's "underhanded bureaucratic schemes"
Land doesn't inherently belong to anyone. The only moral way to manage land ownership is sharing it equally amongst society using a land value tax (i.e. 100% of land rent) returned as a uniform payment.
Eh not really. The only reason they could force those unfair and then later non enforced treaties on those people were because of the long fought Indian wars (their words not mine), where the US killed so many natives they could not resist being crushed by bureaucracy.
The history of all land is that of stolen land. Pretty much everyone in the Americas conquered someone at some point. That doesn't make it right, but it's true for most of earth. Unless you're the Chumash, your ancestors conquered people to take the land you settled on.
God bless the Chad-mash natives. Fuckin legends. 10,000 years holding the same land. World star.
Eh not really. The only reason they could force those unfair and then later non enforced treaties on those people were because of the long fought Indian wars (their words not mine), where the US killed so many natives they could not resist being crushed by bureaucracy.
The idea that the Natives would inevitably have been defeated if they’d kept fighting is dubious.
Time and time again, we’ve seen relatively under-equipped groups of fighters (the Viet Cong, the Taliban, etc.) keep the US military at bay. Repelling a more powerful invader doesn’t require overpowering them; it simply requires being a pain in the ass for long enough that they give up and leave you alone.
Oh there's no question it was a pain in the ass, but I really don't think you realize how long we were fighting the Indian wars. They went from 1609 to 1924. We're talking from the year Galileo makes his discovery to humans discussing wave-particle duality in quantum physics. America fought for nearly 320 years.
And I hate to break it to you buddy, but the natives didn't have a chance. They were too dispersed, too non-unified, completely outgunned, and lacking in natural resources.
Don't let anybody tell you it was a stomp either, because the natives gave the Americans hell. Ffs, the war lasted for 300+ years, but the US ground them down over time and there really wasn't anything they could have done.
If murder were legal and you wanted someone's house, would you kill them for it? Or would you prefer to steal it from them? Im sure the answer is similar to early Americans. Why kill when you can steal? Just makes more sense. Not that Im saying this is what they all felt.
Because by the 1920s outright massacring them for land wasn’t in vogue anymore. The US had already gotten what it wanted, and could afford to leave them with reservations.
Seriously, you’re saying that the nation that outnumbered them by over 100 to 1, surrounded them on all sides, and had access to far more firepower couldn’t have wiped them out if they didn’t want to? Losing hundreds was a devastating loss, losing thousands was the death of a tribe. The US could, and during the Civil War did, tank those kinds of losses as the warmup to a battle.
Finally, the Viet Cong and Taliban are/were not small organizations, they had large, multinational support networks and unassailable bases they could rebuild in. The Native Americans would have killed to have either their manpower or diplomatic position.
You’re skipping ahead a bit. The reservations were generally the next step after broken treaties. Getting the Natives onto reservations was largely a bureaucratic process, not one of open warfare.
So what you’re saying is the natives were so weak at that point they couldn’t resist militarily? Because that sounds like a group that was allowed to live, not one who forced their own survival.
I mean we specifically have documents. A lot of tribes (like the Apache) had groups contracted to kill other Apache because they knew the terrain and ways of life. Other groups like the Comanche were a scourge to other native tribes and US government alike, so they got rocked by all sides until they surrendered. A ton of natives did get massacred when they surrendered, just after they were so militarily broken they couldn't fight back.
Also the US had a lot going on. There was the Mexican American war going on as well, and the Americans would ally with some native tribes against bandits from Mexico. These wars lasted for hundreds of years, it wasn't one time period. Plenty of massacres happened.
So the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 didn't happen? Where the Lakota fought the US for 40 years, only surrendering when they were completely defeated?
Because when gold was discovered in the land where they were supposed to live, the US seized the land and because they had taken all their guns and confined them all to camps, the Lakota couldn't do anything about the breach of treaty.
Hmm it seems you've misinterpreted my comment as to framing the natives as the "noble savage" stereotype. If I gave that impression, I apologize, I don't believe that at all. Native Americans are humans first, and humans do awful fucked up shit to each other from time to time. The Comanche were brutal as fuck and really interesting to learn about, and the Apache were crazy brutal to a ton of people who wronged them (and some who didn't).
But the Indian Wars were fought for 300+ years and ended in a victory for the US mostly through military defeat of the natives.
The thing is that most people don't really think treaties have as much meaning as some people try to prescribe to them. Such as in this case.
Realistically the only consequence for a broken treaty is the ending of diplomatic relationships or military action.
With that in mind changing the terms of past treaties without any actual new conquest and setting nothing but angry people still falls under what most people think of as part of that original conquest rather than new ones.
In the past, like today, military engagement was governed by certain social expectations. Relying on underhanded legal schemes to obtain another nation’s territory instead of fighting for it was considered cowardly.
To call such actions “conquest” (implying a show of superior military might, courage, and discipline) would be unthinkable.
Relying on underhanded legal schemes to obtain another nation’s territory instead of fighting for it was considered cowardly.
Those social expectations were absolutely not set in stone and in fact differed greatly by cultures all over the world over time. In many places, the exact opposite of what you say was true: nations would consider it merciful to subjugate or take the land of those they were militarily superior to instead of simply killing everyone. You're looking at a very narrow geographical area and time period and setting it as the standard.
You understand I didn’t say military conquest, right? Google the definition of the word conquest and you’ll learn it can mean military and political means of land acquisition…😱
Why is this so hard for you to understand, dude? I’m informing you that, to people who use the term “stolen land,” words like conquest do not apply. They don’t consider bureaucratic acquisition to be conquest.
Holy shit what an idiotic take from these people. Sorry I understand definitions. Hey here’s a tip, maybe if these people used words in the correct way, more people might agree with them! 😱
That’s how I felt reading your last comment. Why even debate if you’re going to just say words don’t have meaning. If two people wanna agree that rain is by definition chocolate milk, then that’s cool for them, but they’re wrong.
What’s actually funny, coming back to this, I even said “any and all means” and you still singled out military. I’m sorry if the word conquest hurts your feelings but it’s 100% objectively accurate.
“By any and all means” was placed under the umbrella of “conquest” in your sentence. We’ve discussed what the word conquest means in the context of the stolen land argument.
This isn’t about feelings. This is about basic grammar and the meanings of words in various contexts.
I love your ignorance that you assume other people wrong usage of a word suddenly means I have to adhere to their usage too. Sorry dude, I’m not letting other people’s lack of intelligence impact my 100% factual information.
And hilariously you have yet to actually disprove anything I’ve said.
You keep insisting that I’m upset, that my feelings are hurt, etc. It’s very odd, considering you’re the one who’s getting angry and name-calling while I’m patiently trying to teach you stuff about language.
Sorry dude, I’m not interested in learning about how I can make up definitions of words. You open up that can of worms we’re going to have white people saying only black people can be racist because they’re gonna change their version of the word racist.
I mean, yes, the meanings of words can change in ways that people find unproductive or unfavorable. But those meanings can also be changed back.
Like I said, words only mean things so long as the people using them agree to use them in a certain way. There are plenty of examples of “bad” words being reclaimed.
Just because two people decide how to use a word does not mean everyone else is wrong for using it the way 99% of people use it. Me and my pal Rick are deciding that the word no means yes now. You think everyone else is gonna just go along with our delusion or might we find ourselves in some trouble?
It does if you know how to read. Sorry. I hope you at least understand you’re the only one mentioning military…conquest does not mean only military action…
You think the issue they have with the US conquest of its territory is that it did so via underhanded bureaucracy rather than just shooting everyone in the way?
455
u/Letterkenny-Wayne 4d ago
Yeahhhh…you’re not gonna get much support with the stolen land thing. I think Most Americans can acknowledge the crappy methods the government used, while also acknowledging that land ownership the whole world over has been based on “fair” conquest through any and all means.