One of the interesting things I see, as a card carrying Native American, is typically a post or an interesting article about land being given or taken away from Natives. While a lot of people have misplaced guilt and possible repentive feelings towards the issue, there’s another vocal minority that is also angry about it. I think neither is necessary, and I can explain on the points, but it’s still quite a sore subject for many.
The vitriol that spills forth is usually a combination of anger and hatred and racism, typically because of the fairness/unfairness debate of land ownership that boils down to a few points.
- The Natives took this land from someone, so taking it from them means it’s ok!
This point is interesting not just because it’s part of a false “might makes right” doctrine, but also because of the fact that it assumes that the original owners of the land have been continuously replaced or displaced. This happens in countless locations all over the world at all points in time. The point I’d like to make refuting this idea is that the philosophy of Natives and land ownership in general was much different that the colonialist and traditionalist view of today. Native Americans DID have a concept of ownership-but not a concept that is identifiable to today’s concept. Most philosophies practiced a “stewardship” type of ownership, where tribes “owned” the land so much as to farm and hunt on them, but also to maintain them and care for future generations. They recognized that the land wasn’t necessarily “theirs” but as a piece of the world and Earth, they would be part of a greater cycle. People passed through territories and areas, and the passage was free to move about the land so much as it was respected. Women owned the plots of land that were farmed as part of the communities, and the farming was rotated with the crops and areas that were viable. Villages were moved when the land was exhausted and brought back after period of years.
There were territorial disputes and skirmishes over land, but the difference in those skirmishes is the key element. Native Americans had weapons that were not as deadly as when Europeans arrived. Natives used bows, stone weapons, wood weapons and even wooden armor. When having battles, people died, but they didn’t necessarily die at a high rate. This practice was actually typical of many tribes as when battles commenced-they took from the other tribes and captured to replace their dead. This way of adoption was sustainable due to the low volume of death, which meant it was easy to replace a few to tens of people with new “adoptions”. These adoptions weren’t slavery, by the way. They were integrated into the tribe to replace lost people-a new daughter/son or some instance. People were free to go and were not used a chattel but as part of the greater tribe.
The arrival of steel and metal-based weapons increased the body count and death rate by an incredible margin. Not only did many people die, but they balance of replacing people and tribes were thrown out of stabilization as the tribes began to adopt the weapons as well as advance the needs of trade with the new visitors. The Beaver Wars were a period of territorial dispute for pelts which pushed many tribal populations out of areas just for the advancing need for weapons and greed that it brought with it. Whole tribes were adopted for trade as well as replacing the need for new people.
Another point to add is that the population of the new world was still relatively low. Native Populations were never truly high to begin with as their villages and population centers never sustained high numbers in general. At their height of power, the Iroquois had between 12-20,000 people total, and dwindled down after wars and disease took their toll. While they commanded a vast amount of territory in the northeast US, they still maintained small villages and populations. In fact, the Iroquois was a band of 6 different tribes-5 original New York based tribes and 1 joined/displaced tribe from North Carolina that protected each other as a confederacy.
So the point of Natives killing other Natives to take land is less of an exact science. As the confederacy, the 6 nations existed possibly 500 years before the colonists arrived. Which would indicate that the Iroquois were the “right” rulers of the land “taken” by the “whites”, or at least the closest to original that you could claim. I don’t know how long you want to put a time stamp on it, but there’s reasonable proof that the Iroquois existed in the area long before the concept of taking or right made a difference in order to claim ownership. Other tribes existed in their “native” areas for a long time as well, even taking into the account South American tribes who had recorded history of ancient times.
Natives allowed the early colonists to survive and exist on the land because of those concepts in the first place. They took pity on them, and believed that the white way of life matched the same principles that respected the Earth in the first place.
Also, the taking of land by force concept goes two ways. If people want to complain that their ancestors were justifying in taking the land, then the same must be true of today’s terms in that if the land is given or reclaimed by the Natives or “original” owners, then the might of today’s Natives is what is made right. The lovely thing to say is that today’s owners aren’t responsible for the past. Which again, is true that today’s conquerors aren’t responsible for the deals that do or don’t protect anyone who owns the land now.
Rousseau had a great comment in his book, “The Social Contract” about land usage:
“The ‘right of the first occupant’, although more real that the ‘right of the strongest’, does not become a true right until the institution of property…As a general rule, to justify the right of the first occupant to any piece of land whatever, the following conditions must obtain; first, that the land shall not already be inhabited by anyone else; secondly, that the claimant occupies no more than he needs for subsistence; thirdly, that he takes possession…by actually working and cultivating the soil-the only sign of ownership which need be respected by other people in the absence of a legal title.”
- The Natives are somehow responsible for signing or trading the land away.
This instance is a bit easier to clear up. Besides the fact that land ownership meant different things to the Natives than to the white people-with many tribes complaining about the fact that they didn’t understand those terms or that terms were done with the wrong representatives or under duress, etc, there’s also the fact that the United States has BROKEN EVERY SINGLE TREATY its made with any Native American tribe/government/people. That onus is not on the Native Americans or the fact that when valuable property was found or made on those lands, claims shot up significantly or people died under mysterious circumstances or simply “disappeared”. Scalp hunting was real in those days and people were in real danger when the value and money and greed are involved.
Another Rousseau quote;
“It may also happen that men begin to unite before they possess anything, and spreading over a territory large enough for them all, proceed to enjoy it in common…In whatever manner this acquisition is made, the right of any individual over his own estate is always subordinate to the right of the community over everything; for without this there would be neither strength in the social bond nor effective force in the exercise of sovereignty”. How many shady deals were made for the profit of the individual and not the “community” that were forced from their lands?
So there you go. Besides this issue being a giant cluster mess, it’s also a mess in terms of communication, understanding, patience and the major point of greed. To say that it is the fault of Natives is ignorant and still racist, and if you’ve read this you might understand how some of those straw man arguments are false and maybe have some consideration and understanding of the issue. In today’s world, I doubt many want to be displaced or without claim to home or ownership, but it happens quite frequently.