Stolen Lands Again

 

Leftists are fond of claiming that all of America is “stolen land” taken from the Indians and making “acknowledgments” about it. Conservatives observe correctly that this has not led to leftists handing things they own over to any Indians, and the charge of hypocrisy is accurate. However it misses the most important point. It is possible for hypocrites to be right in principle about something on which they are hypocritical. It is necessary to refute the claims, not just show the leftists are being phonies.

The notion of theft presupposes the notion of property. If there were no property, that is things that rightly belong to someone, there could be no theft. People acquire property rights to land in a wilderness by settling it – by building permanent dwellings such as a town or village on it or by farming , ranching, mining, or otherwise developing it. Moving through land on nomadic hunting trips, having a small village within miles of it, or marching across it in the name of the King of Spain does not acquire property rights to it. Some of the land in what is now the United States was fully settled by Indians, and any newcomers should have respected their property, and, if they wanted it, bought it from them (which often happened as when the Dutch bought Manhattan). Those who did otherwise were wrong. However most of the continent north of the Rio Grande was wilderness belonging to no one. It was not stolen and could not have been stolen.

It is interesting that the proponents of the idea of America as stolen lands seem mainly to be socialists and communists who generally deny the whole idea of property rights, showing that if one hates America enough, any excuse will do, and any inconsistency is acceptable. Some others are rich, posturing phonies who deserve to be called on their phoniness. It would be amusing to see what the defense would be if some Vermont Indians showed up in court demanding ownership of, say, a famous ice cream factory in the state, or some California Indians laid claim to a well known singer’s mansion. That would be worth paying to watch.

Stolen Lands

 

Leftists lately have been fond of claiming that all of America is “stolen land” taken from the Indians and sometimes demanding that one parcel or another be returned to them. Conservatives point out that it is never land owned or used by the leftists that they want returned, and the charge of hypocrisy is accurate. However it misses the most important point. It is possible for hypocrites  to be right in principle about something on which they are hypocritical. It is necessary to refute the claims, not just show the leftists are being phonies.

The notion of theft presupposes the notion of property. If there were no property, that is things that rightly belong to people, there could be no theft. People acquire rights of property in land in wildernesses by developing it - usually for agriculture or mining or manufacture - or by building and using durable, long used structures on it. Moving through land on nomadic hunting trips, having a small village within miles of it, or marching across it in the name of the King of Spain does not acquire property rights to it. Some of the land in what is now the United States was fully settled by Indians, and any newcomers should have respected their property, and, if the wanted it, bought it from them (as when the Dutch bought Manhattan). Those who did otherwise were wrong. However most of the continent was wilderness belonging to no one. It was not stolen and could not have been stolen.

It is interesting that the proponents of the idea of America as stolen lands seem mainly to be socialists and communists who usually disparage or deny the idea of property rights. But if one hates America enough, any excuse will do. Of course some are rich, posturing phonies who deserve to be called on their phoniness. It would be amusing to see what the defense would be if some Vermont Indians showed up in court demanding ownership of, say, a famous ice cream factory in the state. That case would be worth watching on TV, even on pay per view.