Living on stolen land

[Augustus]

Some people talk about “stolen land”, usually in relation to the ‘settler-colonialist’ states like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and also Israel.

Is this a meaningful concept though? Do any groups live on land that is rightfully “theirs” who didn’t ultimately acquire it through violence and conquest at some point?

Why did more recent white settler-colonialists 'steal' the land, but no one would ever say 'settler-colonialists' like the Anglo-Saxons or Han Chinese "stole" land they currently occupy?

Irredentist claims made by nations, such as Russian claims on Crimea and Novorossiya, 'German' Sudetenland, or those which sparked the Balkan War, are generally viewed as regressive people ‘living in the past’. To those without an emotional investment, it's just one group arbitrarily deciding they are the rightful owners of land that has changed hands countless times.

But progressives who favour the ‘stolen land’ terminology see this claim as as noble (as of course do the irredentists).

It’s not the case that many of the people who had their land’s ‘stolen’ had been there since time immemorial.

Many people will look at white South Africans as being the descendants of people who ‘stole’ land from its rightful African owners, such as the Zulus.

White settlers did indeed displace African pastoralists, the Khoikhoi, and hunter-gatherers, the San (“bushmen”) but so did the Zulus. Moreover, in many places they were doing it at exactly the same time (See Bantu expansion and the mfecane).

White settlers had actually been in possession of the Cape Colony for longer than many of the Bantu-speaking groups had been in possession of what we would now see unequivocally as “their” land.

In places like America and New Zealand, white people conquered/subjugated peoples who had often been in possession of “their” land for less than a couple of centuries, and who had acquired it by force (even genocide) too.

And while it is true that some indigenous groups didn't have the same concept of land ownership, they certainly used violence to be able to use desirable territories and to prevent others from using them.

Is there something fundamentally more ethical and legitimate about 'indigenous' people violently acquiring their land from other 'indigenous' peoples? Or is it like the irredentist who picks an arbitrary time in history which defines who owns the land in perpetuity?

I guess some people might say that some lands are “stolen” because treaties signed were not honoured. They weren’t honoured anywhere at that time though beyond their usefulness. War was an instrument of policy the world over, and treaties were temporary until one side thought they could improve their status by breaking it. It's not ethical, but might made right everywhere, including among the people conquered/subjugated.

Just to be clear, this obviously doesn’t prevent us from acknowledging myriad historical atrocities (although it’s not like any one group had the monopoly on these).

It also doesn’t preclude the need to identify and acknowledge the legacies of these actions or create initiatives to improve the lives of the descendent of previous ‘owners’ of the land in the present and future.

It is simply about whether using a term like "stolen land" is useful or misleading.

If pretty much all land has been acquired by violent means though, what, if anything, qualifies some land as “stolen” and the rest as legitimately occupied by its rightful owners? Are irredentist claims also legitimate? Is there a difference?

Does the concept of 'stolen land' help us to understand the world better? Is it just arbitrary and ideological and thus obfuscate more than it informs? Something else?

Thoughts?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

By definition, when you take something without permission, it is stealing.

That it happened recently, with the descendants of the victims still living in poverty and state violence, we absolutely should be using descriptors that call attention to it.

 

[Debater Slayer]

In my opinion, human life matters much more than land per se. Once an act of "stealing" land stops having a negative effect on any living person, then it becomes almost irrelevant compared to similar acts that still have negative effects today.

In the cases of Israel, Russia, and, to a lesser extent, the US, their occupation of others' land has tangible effects today. This is not the case for some instances of similar occupation that occurred centuries or over a millennium ago.

 

[Stevicus]

Some people talk about “stolen land”, usually in relation to the ‘settler-colonialist’ states like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and also Israel.

Is this a meaningful concept though? Do any groups live on land that is rightfully “theirs” who didn’t ultimately acquire it through violence and conquest at some point?

...

If pretty much all land has been acquired by violent means though, what, if anything, qualifies some land as “stolen” and the rest as legitimately occupied by its rightful owners? Are irredentist claims also legitimate? Is there a difference?

Does the concept of 'stolen land' help us to understand the world better? Is it just arbitrary and ideological and thus obfuscate more than it informs? Something else?

Thoughts?

I don't think the term "stolen land" is truly meaningful in any legal sense. Even if most Americans acknowledge our history of expansionist and aggressive land acquisition, it doesn't mean all of America is just going to shut down and give all the land back to the Native descendants. The milk has already been spilled.

I think terms like "stolen land" have come up mainly as an answer to those who tout America (and other Western countries) as some kind of honorable paragon of virtue. It's a way of challenging false, mendacious imagery about America and the West that many propagandists have put forth. It puts morally superior, sanctimonious types in their place and reminds them that they have no right to judge other countries, governments, or political systems.

 

[Aštra’el]

It is a worthless phrase.

This land was not “stolen”. It was conquered, and won. There is much to be proud of, and nothing to be ashamed of.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I don't think the term "stolen land" is truly meaningful in any legal sense. Even if most Americans acknowledge our history of expansionist and aggressive land acquisition, it doesn't mean all of America is just going to shut down and give all the land back to the Native descendants. The milk has already been spilled.

I think terms like "stolen land" have come up mainly as an answer to those who tout America (and other Western countries) as some kind of honorable paragon of virtue. It's a way of challenging false, mendacious imagery about America and the West that many propagandists have put forth. It puts morally superior, sanctimonious types in their place and reminds them that they have no right to judge other countries, governments, or political systems.

I find myself largely agreeing with this. The phrase itself is mostly pointless in any practical sense, but acknowledging the history of one's country isn't. Learning from history and knowing that certain actions were atrocities that should never be repeated is important.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This land was not “stolen”. It was conquered, and won. There is much to be proud of, and nothing to be ashamed of.

^ almost sick beyonds world, made more so by being entirely unsurprising.

 

[blü 2]

Some people talk about “stolen land”, usually in relation to the ‘settler-colonialist’ states like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and also Israel.

Is this a meaningful concept though? Do any groups live on land that is rightfully “theirs” who didn’t ultimately acquire it through violence and conquest at some point?

Why did more recent white settler-colonialists 'steal' the land, but no one would ever say 'settler-colonialists' like the Anglo-Saxons or Han Chinese "stole" land they currently occupy?

Irredentist claims made by nations, such as Russian claims on Crimea and Novorossiya, 'German' Sudetenland, or those which sparked the Balkan War, are generally viewed as regressive people ‘living in the past’. To those without an emotional investment, it's just one group arbitrarily deciding they are the rightful owners of land that has changed hands countless times.

But progressives who favour the ‘stolen land’ terminology see this claim as as noble (as of course do the irredentists).

It’s not the case that many of the people who had their land’s ‘stolen’ had been there since time immemorial.

Many people will look at white South Africans as being the descendants of people who ‘stole’ land from its rightful African owners, such as the Zulus.

White settlers did indeed displace African pastoralists, the Khoikhoi, and hunter-gatherers, the San (“bushmen”) but so did the Zulus. Moreover, in many places they were doing it at exactly the same time (See Bantu expansion and the mfecane).

White settlers had actually been in possession of the Cape Colony for longer than many of the Bantu-speaking groups had been in possession of what we would now see unequivocally as “their” land.

In places like America and New Zealand, white people conquered/subjugated peoples who had often been in possession of “their” land for less than a couple of centuries, and who had acquired it by force (even genocide) too.

And while it is true that some indigenous groups didn't have the same concept of land ownership, they certainly used violence to be able to use desirable territories and to prevent others from using them.

Is there something fundamentally more ethical and legitimate about 'indigenous' people violently acquiring their land from other 'indigenous' peoples? Or is it like the irredentist who picks an arbitrary time in history which defines who owns the land in perpetuity?

I guess some people might say that some lands are “stolen” because treaties signed were not honoured. They weren’t honoured anywhere at that time though beyond their usefulness. War was an instrument of policy the world over, and treaties were temporary until one side thought they could improve their status by breaking it. It's not ethical, but might made right everywhere, including among the people conquered/subjugated.

Just to be clear, this obviously doesn’t prevent us from acknowledging myriad historical atrocities (although it’s not like any one group had the monopoly on these).

It also doesn’t preclude the need to identify and acknowledge the legacies of these actions or create initiatives to improve the lives of the descendent of previous ‘owners’ of the land in the present and future.

It is simply about whether using a term like "stolen land" is useful or misleading.

If pretty much all land has been acquired by violent means though, what, if anything, qualifies some land as “stolen” and the rest as legitimately occupied by its rightful owners? Are irredentist claims also legitimate? Is there a difference?

Does the concept of 'stolen land' help us to understand the world better? Is it just arbitrary and ideological and thus obfuscate more than it informs? Something else?

Thoughts?

The reason it makes political sense to approach it as stolen land is to effect as best as possible a reconciliation with the First Nation inheritors of the consequences of European settlement, whether in British, French, Spanish, Portuguese or other colonies.

I understand all the ripostes, such as "You used to invade each other's land" but that's not addressing the issue as I see it.

Briefly put, a culture in which one stream regards the other stream as their literal enemy is not a healthy culture, be it Democrats v Republicans or Canada v however many tribal cultures remain. And of the alternative solutions ─ Nyah, suck it up! as to Let's sit down and see what we can do ─ it's my nature to prefer the latter.

 

[Augustus]

By definition, when you take something without permission, it is stealing.

That it happened recently, with the descendants of the victims still living in poverty and state violence, we absolutely should be using descriptors that call attention to it.

This tends not to be applied to land though, the term used for violent acquisition of land is conquered in almost all historical usages except this one.

In your opinion, when do lands count as "stolen" or 'legitimately owned by means of historical violent conquest'?

Also, if we know person A stole from person B who stole from person C who stole from person D, but we can't identify persons C and D, should person B really be considered the rightful owner who had "their" property stolen?

 

[Augustus]

In my opinion, human life matters much more than land per se. Once an act of "stealing" land stops having a negative effect on any living person, then it becomes almost irrelevant compared to similar acts that still have negative effects today.

In the cases of Israel, Russia, and, to a lesser extent, the US, their occupation of others' land has tangible effects today. This is not the case for some instances of similar occupation that occurred centuries or over a millennium ago.

Russia believes that Ukraine is occupying their lands, that is the essence of irredentism: "our people" are suffering in stolen lands and we should have them back.

Also the idea that there are no tangible effects of historical settler-colonialism today doesn't hold much water.

The heirs of the ancient Britons, the Welsh, are certainly tangibly impacted by Anglo-Saxons "stealing" their land and relegating them a small portion of it. The same is true just about anywhere where there are descendent of those who lost territorial conflict.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Can't vote, given there are so many different examples to consider, but I suppose an invading force (as in it not being their land) and using gatling guns against spears or bows and arrows (or similar) might make one more likely to see such as being 'stolen'. And given that mostly the motives to do so were not exactly honorable - exploitation of resources and/or eviction of indigenous populations to enable 'settlers' taking the land and expansion of the power of the invading force. But then so many nations have done so as to few not being guilty of such things. Hardly a good reflection on humans though.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd say that all land is stolen.
Could'a been recently or long long ago.
We might or not know from whom.
The victims & descendants might or might not be around.
Political & economic stability require accepting most
current owners as cromulent. Only "most".

 

[Subduction Zone]

By definition, when you take something without permission, it is stealing.

That it happened recently, with the descendants of the victims still living in poverty and state violence, we absolutely should be using descriptors that call attention to it.

I am not so sure of that. I have never heard of a drug dealer being charged with theft if they stole some other dealers drugs. Or if a burglar stole from another burglar. The OP has a good point about land.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

This tends not to be applied to land though, the term used for violent acquisition of land is conquered in almost all historical usages except this one.

In your opinion, when do lands count as "stolen" or 'legitimately owned by means of historical violent conquest'?

I would say "owned by means of violent conquest" and "stolen land" are synonymous.

Legitimacy is determined by those in power in the land in question and their peer sovereignties that recognize it.

Also, if we know person A stole from person B who stole from person C who stole from person D, but we can't identify persons C and D, should person B really be considered the rightful owner who had "their" property stolen?

Possibly, with enough time passing.

We have a .303 British Enfield rifle in our family that was passed down from a World War 2 veteran. Let's say that rifle was stolen from a British soldier in the heat of battle, and brought over after the war (not the actual history). If it is stolen today, my family can certainly make that claim.

If say, China came in tomorrow and forcibly takes over the US, we could claim it as stolen, right? "Stealing" means taking without permission. This includes previously stolen items.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I read through your post, and I guess my issue is that I don't really know if 'settling' is exactly the correct term in european case, for although that is what did happen in effect, it was often probably incidental / secondary to another process. And by the that, I mean that is seems to me that there must have been something awry at home, for we, the descendants of the europeans, to actually go and settle all these lands at such a large scale. If you are a historian, you tell me why.

Did they need space for convicts, so that's the reason for making space in places australia and french guiana? Was there religious strife in europe, causing people to flee to america, and did some also come, conversely, to practice an even more austere version of their religion? Was there overpopulation? As to the slave trade, what is the origin of having such a disrespectful view of labor itself, to cause there to be such a mass market for slavery? And so you see, the 'settling' might have been incidental to many primary headings, making it more of a symptom of something else

I think maybe what happened, is that the europeans become 'unsettled,' and that is why I am flung out here in the american midwest, as opposed to being somewhere in britain. If you can't establish an honest economy, relation to religion, law, population level etc., then something isn't stable.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I am not so sure of that. I have never heard of a drug dealer being charged with theft if they stole some other dealers drugs. Or if a burglar stole from another burglar. The OP has a good point about land.

They could if it was ketamine from a pharmacy.

 

[Stevicus]

I am not so sure of that. I have never heard of a drug dealer being charged with theft if they stole some other dealers drugs. Or if a burglar stole from another burglar. The OP has a good point about land.

Actually, I seem to recall one case many years ago I read about, where one drug dealer went to the police to report that his illegal drugs were stolen by another dealer. It was one of those typical "stupid criminal" stories. The police caught the drug thief, and both perpetrator and victim ended up in jail.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would say "owned by means of violent conquest" and "stolen land" are synonymous.

Legitimacy is determined by those in power in the land in question and their peer sovereignties that recognize it.

By that standard the actions of the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand were fine. In rather little time the natives lost control and the actions of the British settlers were well accepted by their other peer sovereignties.

Possibly, with enough time passing.

We have a .303 British Enfield rifle in our family that was passed down from a World War 2 veteran. Let's say that rifle was stolen from a British soldier in the heat of battle, and brought over after the war (not the actual history). If it is stolen today, my family can certainly make that claim.

If say, China came in tomorrow and forcibly takes over the US, we could claim it as stolen, right? "Stealing" means taking without permission. This includes previously stolen items.

It is very difficult to right wrongs in the distant past. But we can deal with it today.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Russia believes that Ukraine is occupying their lands, that is the essence of irredentism: "our people" are suffering in stolen lands and we should have them back.

Also the idea that there are no tangible effects of historical settler-colonialism today doesn't hold much water.

The heirs of the ancient Britons, the Welsh, are certainly tangibly impacted by Anglo-Saxons "stealing" their land and relegating them a small portion of it. The same is true just about anywhere where there are descendent of those who lost territorial conflict.

I see it as a question of what we can do now. It's pointless to dwell on an act of conquering a land that happened centuries ago instead of focusing on what we can do nowadays to reach a compromise or some sort of agreement satisfying all involved parties.

The alternative is to simply accept past and current instances of occupation and violent conquest as legitimate, but where would that lead us in relation to wars like the one in Ukraine or Israel's frequent building of illegal settlements? I view it as a can of worms that is far less desirable than prioritizing the present and zooming in on what is presently within our control to amend or improve.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

This tends not to be applied to land though, the term used for violent acquisition of land is conquered in almost all historical usages except this one.

In your opinion, when do lands count as "stolen" or 'legitimately owned by means of historical violent conquest'?

Also, if we know person A stole from person B who stole from person C who stole from person D, but we can't identify persons C and D, should person B really be considered the rightful owner who had "their" property stolen?

I am not so sure of that. I have never heard of a drug dealer being charged with theft if they stole some other dealers drugs. Or if a burglar stole from another burglar. The OP has a good point about land.

Something to consider is that "stealing" need not always have a negative connotation, right? If I steal bread to feed my family, I am not necessarily morally wrong. Robin Hood stealing from the rich to feed the poor has a sense of honor in it.

Whether it was right or wrong for Europeans to forcibly take the land away from Indigenous folks for God, Gold, and Glory is an academic question at this point. But what we do with the stolen land is a practical moral question.