> It is high time for non-Native Americans to come to terms with the fact that the United States is built on someone else's land.
Land has been changing hands more or less continuously, forever. Before North America was "seized" by the people who came to be called Americans, parts of it were being seized and re-seized and re-re-seized by various groups of people who lived there at that time.
What is the author's reason for saying that it was at such-and-such a particular time that things were exactly as they should be, that everyone was occupying their proper piece of land?
I mean, it was violent bloodshed before the invaders arrived, and then it was ... more violent bloodshed after they arrived. People were being mean to each other long before the invaders arrived, and also after -- and ever since, everywhere in the world. Does the author think it's particularly bad to be mean to people who are of different ethnicity?
If a party owns land the US, by what moral authority can they block others access to it? By what moral authority can they demand rent on threat of eviction? Why wouldn't any democratic agency simply have the right to take it from them without compensation?
The reason this is a deeply interesting topic is because there are exceptionally strong claims to property rights made in the US and that same property was almost entirely all stolen in the recent past.
And because one gets such inconsistencies as claiming the theft occurred in the "mists of time" when, by definition, the constitution itself is further back in those same mists of time.
And the logically absurd (and patently false claims) that one can't locate a parcel's original possessor therefore some arbitrary purchaser down an illicit chain can make nearly unlimited exclusive claim to owning it.
And of course endless use of tu quoque.
So the authors intention is an utterly uninteresting red herring. It is a remarkable opportunity for thoughtful people to examine their own inconsistent views. The rest will simply shut their ears and convince themselves their is no reason for contemplation.
Replace "America" with "Germany" and "Eastern Europe" and consider whether you would like to uphold your position.
The author's point was that the common narrative of European settlers colonizing an empty continent, alternatively European colonists bringing civilization to wild, barren lands has to be extended with European settlers bringing mass extermination to the indigenous population, through many different means.
America has long held itself up as "better" than other countries - more virtuous, more wise, more free, more advanced, etc. etc.
When you actually look into it you see: a) the utterly brutal dispossession and extermination of a weak and technologically primitive existing population b) the callous and self-serving enslavation of vast numbers of people c) vicious and destructive interference in weak countries across the 20th and 21st century to facilitate the wholesale theft of natural resources.
I'm not saying that the rest of the world doesn't have its own sins, or that any other country would have been particularly better if they had the opportunities that America has had, but please, get down off your high horse. The ignorance and self-infatuation of American people is why they are so widely hated.
So presumably, if some foreign power invaded the US next week, violently exterminated most of the population, and herded the survivors into a few tracts of land, you would be fine with that? After all, land changes hands continuously.
>Land has been changing hands more or less continuously, forever. Before North America was "seized" by the people who came to be called Americans, parts of it were being seized and re-seized and re-re-seized by various groups of people who lived there at that time.
The scale and the speed were different. When a group of people moves in occupying part of the land, gradually over a long period is very different to one just moves in, kills all and takes everything.
I think what the author is saying is that the history taught in schools and colleges should not omit the part about the how the lands were acquired from the native americans.
"Of this self-identified population, only a fraction are visible minorities, subject to the discrimination that shapes identity and forges political movements."
Yeah, right. I think the author did very little research into the modern problems. Also, self-identified might cut it for the news media, but each tribe has a list of enrolled members. If you are not on someones list, you are not Native American for a vast majority of purposes.
Was "El Norte" (the Spanish settlement of California) only along the coast, or did they never lay full claim to the land? Curious as to why it doesn't really show on this visualization.
There's an excellent book about settlement patterns in the US called American Nations, by Colin Woodward. His theory is essentially that we don't pay nearly enough attention to the different influences of the competing original colonies, and that if you examine the history in this light there are all kinds of interesting narratives that you can draw. E.g., tidewater slavery != deep south slavery in fairly significant ways, because of the origin of each of those colonies (british gentry vs progeny of barbados slave owners) - and yet we generally make no distinction at all.
Very interesting visualization. It complements the recent release of An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, an excellent introduction to a consistently ignored aspect of US History.
Consistently ignored? Not at all. We are constantly reminded of this topic these days. It's very popular.
For instance, all you hear about on Columbus Day is about how (supposedly) horrible Colombus was, and how people are insulted that we still celebrate him.
Vaguely reminiscent of maps of Israel and Palestine. Of course in the case of Native Americans, they are primarily to blame for obstinately refusing to accept the very generous division of 1807, in which they had the majority of the land. Instead they attacked the European settlers, leaving them with no choice but to expand for the purpose of self protection.
> It is high time for non-Native Americans to come to terms with the fact that the United States is built on someone else's land.
As usual, the concepts of "native United States citizen" and "native North American aborigine" are being conflated.
The United States is a "nation of colonists". The Republic did not precede the North-Western European colonists who founded it. Demands for non-Aborigionies to acknowledge "someone else's land" stem from a failure to distinguish between United States citizenship and chance birth on the North American continent. The North American Aborigine peoples may have historically been born on the North American landmass, but they were not the founders of the United States nor the people whose interests said nation was designed to further. The disorganized aboriginals variously aided or hindered the expansion of the Republic depending on the particular tribe's short term ends.
The European pioneers did not "steal" a pre-existing democratic republic, rather, they struggled, triumphed, and created their own for their progeny. North American Aborigines lived outside the republic until reservations were allotted to them, reservations which they largely continue to live apart in today.
Frankly, the tone of the parent article smacks of 1960s-era Baby Boomer coming-of-age politics. Its high time to question this line of thinking.
Saying that "North American Aborigines lived outside the republic" is a bit misleading, because it insinuates that they weren't interested in assimilating, and becoming a part of that struggling, triumphing mass of people that identified as Americans at that time.
More truthfully, leading up to the times when they were forcibly relocated to reservations, they were never allowed in, for the same reasons that black residents of the US had a tough time in those years: the world around them was quite racist and (especially in the case of indians) kleptomaniac.
In fact, many Native Americans tried to assimilate; I remember reading about one enterprising native gent in the early 1800s who had made himself quite rich from trade, had a mansion, the whole nine yards ... until the day came when his town wanted his stuff. So they took it, because America was in large part founded on the notion of repeatedly taking stuff that the natives considered their property.
Acknowledging the massive wrongs committed by this country against those peoples isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I agree with you that we need to be realistic about what conclusions we draw from it. Yes, the United States stole stuff from the indians. No, we're not going to now consider dispossessing the current owners of that stuff; that's akin to, say, questioning the rightness of the origins of modern-day Israel. There's a state there now, so it's moot.
This argument could be extended to literally any people, at any time in history who explored, conquered, annexed or founded a colony/country on a parcel of land that had been explored or lived on before. Franks, Gauls, Nordic vikings, Indo-Europeans, Phoenecians, Romans. They're all in the same club of explorers, navigators, warriors, tradesman, etc. It's also a major logical fallacy to assign current moral/ethical mores to a totally different time and place in history. "But it was bad that the Aztecs ripped hearts out of innocent virgins." Yeah, it was insanely horrible, but at the time that act kept the earth spinning and the gods happy (in their belief system). Want to go back in time and make the argument against that?
The European pioneers did not "steal" a pre-existing democratic republic,
Correct. They didn't steal a pre-existing political entity analogous to their own. What they stole was land and resources. Through force, manipulation, guile, rape, and genocide.
I don't see how either this quote or the article from which it is drawn conflates those those two categories of people. Indeed, it says that we "conquered" the native lands, a word that usually refers to one polity expanding from lands of its own into lands outside of it. It presupposes that native american lands were outside of the United States.
Yes, the European pioneers struggled. Both a military campaign and an agricultural enterprise are very difficult.
[+] [-] b6|11 years ago|reply
Land has been changing hands more or less continuously, forever. Before North America was "seized" by the people who came to be called Americans, parts of it were being seized and re-seized and re-re-seized by various groups of people who lived there at that time.
What is the author's reason for saying that it was at such-and-such a particular time that things were exactly as they should be, that everyone was occupying their proper piece of land?
I mean, it was violent bloodshed before the invaders arrived, and then it was ... more violent bloodshed after they arrived. People were being mean to each other long before the invaders arrived, and also after -- and ever since, everywhere in the world. Does the author think it's particularly bad to be mean to people who are of different ethnicity?
[+] [-] whybroke|11 years ago|reply
The reason this is a deeply interesting topic is because there are exceptionally strong claims to property rights made in the US and that same property was almost entirely all stolen in the recent past.
And because one gets such inconsistencies as claiming the theft occurred in the "mists of time" when, by definition, the constitution itself is further back in those same mists of time.
And the logically absurd (and patently false claims) that one can't locate a parcel's original possessor therefore some arbitrary purchaser down an illicit chain can make nearly unlimited exclusive claim to owning it.
And of course endless use of tu quoque.
So the authors intention is an utterly uninteresting red herring. It is a remarkable opportunity for thoughtful people to examine their own inconsistent views. The rest will simply shut their ears and convince themselves their is no reason for contemplation.
[+] [-] sveme|11 years ago|reply
The author's point was that the common narrative of European settlers colonizing an empty continent, alternatively European colonists bringing civilization to wild, barren lands has to be extended with European settlers bringing mass extermination to the indigenous population, through many different means.
[+] [-] jasonisalive|11 years ago|reply
When you actually look into it you see: a) the utterly brutal dispossession and extermination of a weak and technologically primitive existing population b) the callous and self-serving enslavation of vast numbers of people c) vicious and destructive interference in weak countries across the 20th and 21st century to facilitate the wholesale theft of natural resources.
I'm not saying that the rest of the world doesn't have its own sins, or that any other country would have been particularly better if they had the opportunities that America has had, but please, get down off your high horse. The ignorance and self-infatuation of American people is why they are so widely hated.
[+] [-] atlantic|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dharmach|11 years ago|reply
The scale and the speed were different. When a group of people moves in occupying part of the land, gradually over a long period is very different to one just moves in, kills all and takes everything.
[+] [-] trextrex|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] protomyth|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] protomyth|11 years ago|reply
Yeah, right. I think the author did very little research into the modern problems. Also, self-identified might cut it for the news media, but each tribe has a list of enrolled members. If you are not on someones list, you are not Native American for a vast majority of purposes.
[+] [-] flavor8|11 years ago|reply
There's an excellent book about settlement patterns in the US called American Nations, by Colin Woodward. His theory is essentially that we don't pay nearly enough attention to the different influences of the competing original colonies, and that if you examine the history in this light there are all kinds of interesting narratives that you can draw. E.g., tidewater slavery != deep south slavery in fairly significant ways, because of the origin of each of those colonies (british gentry vs progeny of barbados slave owners) - and yet we generally make no distinction at all.
[+] [-] golemotron|11 years ago|reply
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] brooklyndude|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chema|11 years ago|reply
http://www.beacon.org/An-Indigenous-Peoples-History-of-the-U...
[+] [-] javert|11 years ago|reply
For instance, all you hear about on Columbus Day is about how (supposedly) horrible Colombus was, and how people are insulted that we still celebrate him.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] swatow|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coldtea|11 years ago|reply
Why should they accept the "generous division" of invaders?
Would you accept the "generous division" of your house or property, to some guy that just arrived and wants it?
[+] [-] dismal2|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kingmanaz|11 years ago|reply
As usual, the concepts of "native United States citizen" and "native North American aborigine" are being conflated.
The United States is a "nation of colonists". The Republic did not precede the North-Western European colonists who founded it. Demands for non-Aborigionies to acknowledge "someone else's land" stem from a failure to distinguish between United States citizenship and chance birth on the North American continent. The North American Aborigine peoples may have historically been born on the North American landmass, but they were not the founders of the United States nor the people whose interests said nation was designed to further. The disorganized aboriginals variously aided or hindered the expansion of the Republic depending on the particular tribe's short term ends.
The European pioneers did not "steal" a pre-existing democratic republic, rather, they struggled, triumphed, and created their own for their progeny. North American Aborigines lived outside the republic until reservations were allotted to them, reservations which they largely continue to live apart in today.
Frankly, the tone of the parent article smacks of 1960s-era Baby Boomer coming-of-age politics. Its high time to question this line of thinking.
[+] [-] mr_luc|11 years ago|reply
Saying that "North American Aborigines lived outside the republic" is a bit misleading, because it insinuates that they weren't interested in assimilating, and becoming a part of that struggling, triumphing mass of people that identified as Americans at that time.
More truthfully, leading up to the times when they were forcibly relocated to reservations, they were never allowed in, for the same reasons that black residents of the US had a tough time in those years: the world around them was quite racist and (especially in the case of indians) kleptomaniac.
In fact, many Native Americans tried to assimilate; I remember reading about one enterprising native gent in the early 1800s who had made himself quite rich from trade, had a mansion, the whole nine yards ... until the day came when his town wanted his stuff. So they took it, because America was in large part founded on the notion of repeatedly taking stuff that the natives considered their property.
Acknowledging the massive wrongs committed by this country against those peoples isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I agree with you that we need to be realistic about what conclusions we draw from it. Yes, the United States stole stuff from the indians. No, we're not going to now consider dispossessing the current owners of that stuff; that's akin to, say, questioning the rightness of the origins of modern-day Israel. There's a state there now, so it's moot.
[+] [-] xacaxulu|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dreamweapon|11 years ago|reply
Correct. They didn't steal a pre-existing political entity analogous to their own. What they stole was land and resources. Through force, manipulation, guile, rape, and genocide.
[+] [-] afarrell|11 years ago|reply
Yes, the European pioneers struggled. Both a military campaign and an agricultural enterprise are very difficult.