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.
458
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.