Stolen or Conquered Land

[liberty]

Billie Eilish Said no one is illegal on stolen land: If someone wants to repeat the slogan “no one is illegal on stolen land,” then they need to accept what the word stolen actually means. In every moral and legal system humans have ever used, stolen property must be returned to its rightful owner, no matter how many times it has changed hands. If you unknowingly buy a stolen car, you still have to give it back. Your innocence doesn’t make the title valid. If the United States is truly “stolen land,” then every house, every deed, every rental contract, every business, and every city sits on property that legally belongs to someone else. And if that’s the case, the only consistent conclusion is that the land must be returned—not symbolically, not rhetorically, but literally. You can’t call the land stolen and then insist on keeping your home, your job, your property, and your legal rights. That’s not how stolen property works.

But here’s the part people avoid: America wasn’t “stolen” in the legal or historical sense—it was conquered. Throughout nearly all of human history, conquest was a universally recognized method of acquiring territory. This wasn’t unique to Europeans; it was practiced in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas, including by Indigenous nations themselves. The United States was formed through conquest, war, treaties, and forced removal. You can call that immoral if you want, but historically it was normal and legitimate under the standards of the time. The idea that conquest should not create legitimate ownership didn’t become mainstream until the 20th century.

And here’s the irony: the man who pushed hardest to end the right of conquest was Woodrow Wilson, one of the most openly racist presidents in American history. Wilson’s League of Nations vision was built on the idea that conquest should no longer legitimize territorial claims. Before him, the right of conquest was accepted across the world. So the modern moral framework behind the phrase “stolen land” comes directly from a president whose views the same activists would otherwise condemn. If you reject Wilson’s worldview, you’re left with the historical reality that America is conquered land, not stolen land—and conquered land, right or wrong, becomes the territory of the conqueror under every legal system prior to the 20th century.

You can’t have it both ways. If the land is stolen, then you must return it. If the land is conquered, then it isn’t stolen under the norms of the time. And if you reject conquest as legitimate, you’re adopting Woodrow Wilson’s worldview. Either way, the slogan collapses under its own weight.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/music ... 236492156/

[MajGenl.Meade]

Aside from not giving a rat's ass for Billie Eilish . . .

When Americans visit Mexico City, they are in modern Mexico—not the Mayan Empire, the Aztec Empire, or New Spain. When Italians go to London, they are in England—not the Roman Empire. When Africans travel to Johannesburg, they are in South Africa—not Dutch, British, Xhosa, or Zulu territory. And when anyone arrives in Los Angeles, they are in the United States—not New Spain, Mexico, or land claimed by the Apache or Comanche. The “stolen land” argument is a selective, weaponized narrative used only against select nations. Those who invoke it exploit history to undermine the very societies they seek to join. Nations change, borders shift, and history moves forward— leaving no one innocent.

https://stanfordreview.org/stolen-land- ... olen-land/

[Burning Petard]

Thank you, MajGenl. Succinct and on point as usual.

snailgate.

[BoSoxGal]

Aside from not giving a rat's ass for Billie Eilish . . .

When Americans visit Mexico City, they are in modern Mexico—not the Mayan Empire, the Aztec Empire, or New Spain. When Italians go to London, they are in England—not the Roman Empire. When Africans travel to Johannesburg, they are in South Africa—not Dutch, British, Xhosa, or Zulu territory. And when anyone arrives in Los Angeles, they are in the United States—not New Spain, Mexico, or land claimed by the Apache or Comanche. The “stolen land” argument is a selective, weaponized narrative used only against select nations. Those who invoke it exploit history to undermine the very societies they seek to join. Nations change, borders shift, and history moves forward— leaving no one innocent.

https://stanfordreview.org/stolen-land- ... olen-land/

I’m sorry but that’s absurd.

Whenever we travel to any of the said places, we are existing in history as well as in the present. History is present all around us and we remind ourselves of it everywhere. And yes for many years it’s been the thing to call out the evils of colonialism - not a bad thing if you look at what is happening right now in the Middle East that reminds us the eternal urge in some people to stomp all over and exploit other people’s homes and bodies.

Stolen land is the story of all the land one time or another and knowing that history of theft and exploitation is critical if we are ever to evolve to Federation level existence. I don’t hold out much hope but one must always try.

[Bicycle Bill]

But here’s the part people avoid: America wasn’t “stolen” in the legal or historical sense—it was conquered. Throughout nearly all of human history, conquest was a universally recognized method of acquiring territory. This wasn’t unique to Europeans; it was practiced in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas, including by Indigenous nations themselves. The United States was formed through conquest, war, treaties, and forced removal. You can call that immoral if you want, but historically it was normal and legitimate under the standards of the time.

My dad always said, "Two wrongs don't make a right."   But there's another saying that "You can't put the toothpaste back into the tube."

Yes — America... along with Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, and Australia — was taken from its original peoples by conquest, all the way back to when the first Neanderthal chucked a rock at a Cro-Magnon in order to force him out of a desired cave (or did the Cro-Magnons come after the Neanderthals — I forget).   But there's nothing much anybody can do about it now other than to acknowledge that it did happen and vow that doesn't happen again.

-"BB"-

[Sue U]

Sloganeering is by definition shorthand expression of a more complex idea, in this case a concept of morality or justice -- the application of such concepts evolving with the evolution of societal norms and expectations. Start with the similar rhetorical premise that property is theft: the Earth belongs to everyone and no individual has any greater natural "right" to it than any other. Forcible divestment of anyone's right to the Earth is fundamentally immoral and unjust, whether you call it "stealing" or "conquest." That's why doing it requires some justification that will make the result appear to be moral and just (and above all, profitable) -- or at least acceptable to the degree that the dictating class is not summarily put to death by those whose sensibilities may be offended. If you call it stolen, everyone knows theft is wrong. If you call it conquered, you can pretend to be justified by historical precedent: "We stole it fair and square."

[For avoidance of tedium, omitted here is discussion of bourgeois property secured by state and private violence for purposes of generating profit for the capitalist class. You're welcome.]

If the land is stolen, then you must return it.

This is not the least bit accurate, even (especially) under English law and its international progeny. There are other -- and generally preferred -- methods of compensation.

If the land is conquered, then it isn’t stolen under the norms of the time.

There's that appeal to precedent I was talking about. Still doesn't make it right.

And if you reject conquest as legitimate, you’re adopting Woodrow Wilson’s worldview.

So what? Just because Wilson was a racist doesn't mean everything he did or thought was wrong. Wagner was a racist but it doesn't make his music any less beautiful. We can acknowledge the fact that people have been and will be both brilliant and terrible, and try to encourage the former and correct the latter. It is entirely possible to recognize that things we find repulsive today were at least to some degree socially acceptable in the past, and use that to illustrate progress. Not everything -- least of all people -- is All-good or All-bad.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Stolen land is the story of all the land one time or another and knowing that history of theft and exploitation is critical

I have no problem with the bulk of your post BSG - especially the above line. Very agreeable. Yes.

But I feel that you mischaracterized the article (if you followed the link and read it all) by writing "absurd". It most certainly was not about ignoring or sweeping aside history; in fact, it suggested that a deeper view of history shows the problematic nature of the various facile compensations suggested on the basis of the "theft" claim. It mainly argued against the identification of "theft" and "invasion" as being anything other than a false equivalence. It is bootless "newspeak".

It asks "theft from whom?" as in "who actually owned it at the time?" Tribal (and even clan) divisions are fluid throughout history. The absurdity of positing a modern Pict (if one of that blood exists) complaining about the Celts complaining about the Romans complaining about the Anglo-Saxons complaining about the Vikings complaining about the bloody Normans complaining about every immigrant ever since as to which rightfully "owns" the British Isles and which bits were "stolen" should give us pause. To paraphrase, "exactly where were the Comanches living and which 'boundary' to their land did they acknowledge?" And "who did they take it from?".

What was JF's remark about Trump's latest lame-nominee - Blueboywaynejohn or somebody? He's the first Amerind to be put in charge of homeland security and look what a fine job the Indians made of that!

[Sue U]

it suggested that a deeper view of history shows the problematic nature of the various facile compensations suggested on the basis of the "theft" claim. It mainly argued against the identification of "theft" and "invasion" as being anything other than a false equivalence. It is bootless "newspeak".

It asks "theft from whom?" as in "who actually owned it at the time?" Tribal (and even clan) divisions are fluid throughout history. The absurdity of positing a modern Pict (if one of that blood exists) complaining about the Celts complaining about the Romans complaining about the Anglo-Saxons complaining about the Vikings complaining about the bloody Normans complaining about every immigrant ever since as to which rightfully "owns" the British Isles and which bits were "stolen" should give us pause.

Oh, the bloody Normans! Had to go and screw with the language as well, so now we all speak terrible French!

The slogan in the OP, “no one is illegal on stolen land,” is of course not about whether the land has been invaded or stolen or conquered or claimed in the name of the King of Spain. It's about not acceding to the hypocrisy of historically recent "invaders" now trying to dictate whose presence here is "legal."

And yes certainly issues of historical claims to any land are not well resolved by "various facile compensations suggested on the basis of the 'theft' claim." Creating a just society includes proper recognition and remediation of past injustices in some meaningful way that is not necessarily all or even partly monetary compensation. But I am not convinced that there is currently sufficient interest in creating a just society. And while I would never say never, even if there were such interest, our political climate makes any progress on that front a practical impossibility at present.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Oh, the bloody Normans! Had to go and screw with the language as well, so now we all speak terrible French!

The slogan in the OP, “no one is illegal on stolen land,” is of course not about whether the land has been invaded or stolen or conquered or claimed in the name of the King of Spain. It's about not acceding to the hypocrisy of historically recent "invaders" now trying to dictate whose presence here is "legal."

Your second para there. . . I'm having difficulty seeing that the second sentence is not a complete contradiction of the first (bar the King of Spain, poor Felipe VI).

"no one is illegal on stolen land" rests entirely on the notion that some land somewhere has been "stolen" (the word is a clue), thereby invalidating any action by the "historically recent" invaders (as you put it) to determine the residential status of persons claiming the right to live there. As an historically recent invader myself, I recognize that borders have been instituted historically and in many cases recently with more or less degrees of agreement by various groups. Every such bordered group asserts its right to determine who has a right of entry, under what circumstances (visit visas for example; students) and who has a right to citizenship and the means by which citizenship can be gained.

Clearly, the USA (to pick a non-contentious example )is highly unlikely to accept that either Sue U or MGM should decide such things. Why then should any other named or unnamed individual or group assume the right to declare that "no one is illegal on stolen land", defining for themselves the meaning of "stolen" and of "illegal" as well as the right to pontificate against the enemy of the day. Mind you, they can declare away and good luck to them - that and 6.75 gets a cappuccino.

The just society provides for folks to do what I did. Get your papers from the US embassy, live and work as a legally registered tax-paying alien for the requisite number of years, take the citizenship test. (Hack: marry an American citizen). That's the way people have been emigrating from their own countries to the US for decades - it's an old hack.

If the subject is not legal or illegal folks on stolen land, if the issue is some form of recompense for e.g. slavery, then I'd be interested in supporting a rational and reasonable effort nationally there. A more equitable and just life on native American tribal lands is a worthy goal. But I don't see any connection of those to rubbish slogans such as discussed here. Enlightenment is always welcome

[liberty]

Where is all this sudden reasonableness coming from? I hope you know you messed me up completely. I had everything planned out, and then you went and screwed it up. You were supposed to sound like a bunch of political ideologues instead of objective historians. Well, it doesn’t matter I can just refile it. I’ll probably use it again sometime in the future.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I might add . . . try moving in (let alone building a casino) on AmerInd land and see how quickly y'all are declared illegal. Both by those who govern the land immediately and by the invasive white-eyes in the relevant state legislature, not to mention the national Dept. of the Interior.

Well OK maybe you'd have to try building a casino to make the point work but . . . you know, it's only just Spring or spring and my brain is still hibernating. Obviously