Subnostr

"As the tale goes, one evening Red Cloud attended a White House reception giveny by President Ulysses S. Grant, and found himself in conversation with the bitter officer. Trying to explain the mystical hold that Pahah Sapa had on his people, he told the officer, "My ancestors' bones lie in the Black Hills."

"Horseshit," the officer replied. "Your people have been there no more than a couple of generations. They come from Minnesota, and you were born in Nebraska. You took that land from the Crows. And do you know why took that land from the Crows? Because you could.

"And do you know why we will take that land from you? Because we can."

-"The Heart of Everything That Is: The Untold Story of Red Cloud, An American Legend>

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Leo Fernevak 2y ago

Yes.

In the view of John Locke, the initial state of the world was a free-for-all in terms of land grab. Then as we mixed our labor with the soil, it became ours. That which we worked on and improved, was our property.

Warfare introduced a different ownership mechanic: the winner writes the rules. As warlords conquered regions, they primarily forced taxation upon the subjects, while later they would also coerce religious conversion. Contested land and property was always a trigger for warfare.

As empires grew, civilization and innovations spread more rapidly. With higher energy density new methods of production could catapult innovation.

As our capacity to prosper increased, ethics begged the question - why do we need to conquer, when we can trade? Trade is the voluntary exchange of property.

Yet, our new ethics has no simple answer of how to address historical claims through conquest. Land so and so was conquered, then people mixed their work with the land and it became their property over time. We end up inheriting a complex weave of centuries and millennia, with people mixing their work with the land.